On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Anselm Hannemann <info@anselm-hannemann.com>wrote: > On Thursday, 7. February 2013 at 10:11, Robin Berjon wrote: > > On 06/02/2013 23:39 , Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > > I'm not sure if you saw this on the thread about the picture element > CfC: after understanding that the two specifications are not competing > with each other but are meant to complete each other to cover the > responsive images use cases, I was left to wonder why we have two > separate specifications. > > > There's still some open discussion about which use cases need to be > tackled, and how. > > While this is true, both specifications currently tackle different > use-cases and for now are not yet fully compatible to each other. > This should be fixed by next weeks but the use-cases will always be > different: > - picture is for art-direction mainly and is a completely new element > while > - the srcset attribute is an attribute which should be usable on picture > and img element. > > For that I think authoring both specifications together to reach a good > goal is important but I don't think we should merge > both specifications into one covering all. > Why not? I assume you intend them to be merged into the HTML spec eventually, so they will get together anyway. Also, the @srcset attribute is used in both, and defining the same in two different specifications doesn't make much sense to me. I support the publication of the use case document as FPWD, but I'd like to see the two almost-compatible proposals for <picture> and @srcset be merged and published together as a FPWD, so we don't put browsers into the difficult position of needing to choose which of the two @srcset specifications to follow and implement and we don't end up with incompatible implementations. Regards, Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 12:14:22 UTC