W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-admin@w3.org > February 2013

Re: CfC: to publish "The picture element" specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 07:39:01 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2kUMNbDPE2SWMj4aV-VnYhH1P9pR79pg06H2wqa8pBO=w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
Cc: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, Mat Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
[- <public-respimg@w3.org>, <public-pua@w3.org> ; posting to multiple lists
fragments email threads and is frowned upon]

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:45 AM, Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com> wrote:

> Section 8 'Adaptive images' of the srcset proposal appears inconsistent
> with the intent of the proposal.  There are examples using the srcset as a
> viewport media query to select between images.  Perhaps just remove this
> section.
> I agree that this section should be modified to accommodate the use of
> `srcset` with `<picture>`.
What I am hearing from the discussions is that the 'srcset' and the
<picture> proposal are not alternatives but work best in combination. Is
this correct?

If so, I would suggest the authors of both specifications to get together
and write a single extension specification that includes the motivation for
responsive image design, explains both approaches, their specifications,
and examples on when to use what. As a Web author and browser developer I'd
much prefer dealing with a single document for responsive images than two
or now even three.

If this is not possible, I'd like to know the reasons. Thanks.

Received on Sunday, 3 February 2013 20:39:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:57:22 UTC