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: Fred Andrews <fredandw@live.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 23:11:58 +0000
Message-ID: <BLU002-W891B556E4D275136F9EFA6AA020@phx.gbl>
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
CC: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, Mat Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>
The following article might be of interest:

I do not believe the proposals seeking FPWD have addressed this matter.  The srcset proposal adds a clause giving the UA a choice, but it is not clear that the UA has the information needed to make a choice.  The srcset syntax appears be just media query based 'hints'.  The syntax does not even appear to define the resolution scaling difference between the images, so it is not clear that a UA even know which is a lower or higher resolution image.  Media query hints do not define this information and could have an arbitrary relationship to the actual image resolution.


From: silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 07:39:01 +1100
To: fredandw@live.com
CC: yoav@yoav.ws; mat@matmarquis.com; public-html-admin@w3.org
Subject: Re: CfC: to publish "The picture element" specification as a First  Public Working Draft (FPWD)

[- <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 23:12:24 UTC

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