- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 00:28:02 +0000
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, "public-html-admin@w3.org" <public-html-admin@w3.org>, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
On Wednesday, 16 January 2013 at 23:49, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com (mailto:w3c@marcosc.com)> wrote: > > > > > > On 16/01/2013, at 10:31 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com (mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com)> wrote: > > > > > I also support handling all responsive image proposals the same way as an extension spec. > > > > > > In addition, I'd like to see a discussion by browser vendors and Web developers about their issues with either of these specs. > > > > At least 3 reps for the RICG will be on the call tomorrow. Will try to get a few more key individuals to dial in. > > A discussion on the main email list would be more inclusive (in addition - not instead of). Absolutely - us joining tomorrow is just to coordinate publishing the documents we have prepared [1, 2]. Regarding issues, we are having productive discussions with Hixie in the relevant bugs (see [3] for a list of them). Not sure the RICG has anything in particular to bring to public-html right now (a good thing!:)). Having said that, having additional opinions voiced by HTMLWG participants in the bugs would be extremely helpful. [1] http://picture.responsiveimages.org/pub/WD_5Feb2013.html [2] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/pub/WD_5Feb2013.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-respimg/2012Nov/0024.html -- Marcos Caceres http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 00:28:31 UTC