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: Bruce Lawson <brucel@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 12:39:26 -0000
To: public-html-admin@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wrzer0x1h8on37@bruce-pc>
On Mon, 04 Feb 2013 12:30:29 -0000, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 4 February 2013 at 11:59, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

>> I do wonder whether reusing <source> is a good idea or whether it  
>> should just be something different for images...
> I wondered the same. But advice I got from different people was to resue  
> existing elements instead of inventing new ones.

It seems to me (speaking personally rather than for Opera) that  
conceptually there is no difference between <source> that chooses a source  
file for <video>/ <audio> depending on a media query, and a mechanism that  
chooses a source file for a responsive image element depending on a media  
query. So it feels to me that minting a new element for authors to get to  
grips with  because of implementation/ specification complexity violates  
the priority of constituencies.

(It may, however, factor into a browser vendor's decision to implement or  
not. Did the author of the Chromium implementation find it harder to  
re-use <source>?)


Bruce Lawson
Open standards evangelist
Developer Relations Team

Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 12:40:02 UTC

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