Hi Silvia, >At this stage I believe browsers only implement the @srcset proposal partially. Is this correct? I cannot find any mention of srcset being implemented in any browser. I did a quick search of the mozilla/chrome/webkit bugzillas and found no bugs associated with srcset. regards SteveF On 4 February 2013 04:17, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > >
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 07:23:25 UTC