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: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 07:43:52 +1100
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2nK=9oARAHu3nfvsCCZYLs1j1vfK+xmNq7h=qwHDgJGnA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Edward O'Connor" <eoconnor@apple.com>
Cc: public-html-admin@w3.org
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

> 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.

Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 20:44:40 UTC

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