I admit I did not investigate but remembered somebody saying they'd done a trial implementation. I might be wrong. I just think the less implementation exists, the easier it is to come up with a combined specification. Silvia. On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>wrote: > 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 10:59:34 UTC