- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 07:43:52 +1100
- To: "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>
- Cc: public-html-admin@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAHp8n2nK=9oARAHu3nfvsCCZYLs1j1vfK+xmNq7h=qwHDgJGnA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 6:50 AM, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com> wrote: > > I don't think we should merge the documents, no. Each document sets out > to solve different (though somewhat overlapping) goals, and the features > were designed under different constraints. We should proceed with > speccing both and see what browser engines end up implementing. > OK, I can see how keeping them separate helps the proposal editors pursue them. > Yup. In order for either extension spec to meet the CR exit criteria of > the HTML spec, there will need to be two interoperable implementations > in browser engines. Without implementations, we shouldn't merge either > extension spec. > I took that for granted. However I was under the impression that browsers could safely implement both specs and thus cover more use cases. On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote: >On Thursday, 7 February 2013 at 19:50, Edward O'Connor wrote: >> It's of course true that the people working on each extension spec >> desire their spec to be implemented by browser engines. (Otherwise, why >> work on a spec at all?) It doesn't follow, though, that the people >> working on each extension spec aim to have both of them implemented. For >> instance, I think it would be a mistake for browser engines to implement >> the <picture> element proposal. And I believe that some of the folks >> contributing to the <picture> spec would rather browser engines not >> implement srcset=""'s width and height descriptors in image candidate >> strings. > > I personally don't know what is right here. Just want a solution I, and others, can actually get our heads around - there has been a lot of > complaints about the complexity of the syntax. I've implemented srcset to spec [1] and I still can't make heads of tails about how it works :( That > is, I could not explain it to someone if they asked me. Although it seems to address the use cases, the way it goes about it might be a > (developer) usability problem. Hopefully we can get a simpler syntax but the RICG has struggled to come up with anything better so far. > > [1] http://responsiveimagescg.github.com/picture-refimp/demo/ Right. Given these positions, I agree that we need browser implementers to give feedback on which approach they prefer. I'm revising my position: I support publication of all three documents: the use cases document, the srcset attribute and the picture element proposal. Regards, Silvia.
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 20:44:40 UTC