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

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Mat Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com> wrote:

>
> Merging the two specifications has been one of the the RICG’s goals for
> some time now. I’d be very happy to work towards those ends, though I would
> propose that the scope of the `srcset` attribute be reduced to a set of
> resolution heuristics as a part of that effort. I want to stress that this
> does represent the consensus of the Community Group, rather than simply my
> own opinions on the matter.
>

I'm curious to hear from the srcset proponents if they agree with this
position and would also be willing to contribute to a merged document. It
would be much easier to add the merged document into HTML than individual
ones.


I do know that maintaining parity with the `srcset` as specced by the
> WHATWG is likely a concern, but I’d be more than happy to discuss merging
> the extension specifications further if the editor of the `srcset` doc is
> amenable to the idea. A native solution to the laundry-list of “responsive
> images” concerns is long overdue, but I’m confident that the end is in
> sight.
>

While I am also concerned about the divergence to the WHATWG spec, my main
concern is about what is implemented. At this stage I believe browsers only
implement the @srcset proposal partially. Is this correct?

Best Regards,
Silvia.