On Jan 17, 2013, at 11:07 AM, Mathew Marquis wrote: > > On Jan 17, 2013, at 8:18 AM, Marcos Caceres wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday, 17 January 2013 at 02:05, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: >> >>> Maybe you could send an email to public-html@ explaining the status of the discussion between the two different features to the HTMLWG so people can catch up and start building their own opinion? In the end, the decision will be made by what browsers implement, but I don't think all browsers have made up their mind yet as to which proposal to support. I think an active involvement of this WG into the decision making of the browsers would be useful. >> >> Good idea. I'll see if the RICG Chair (Mat Marquis) can send an update in the next few days. > > Would sending the HTML WG a link to the RICG’s issue tracker [1] be worthwhile? There has been a tremendous amount of discussion between developers and browser representatives leading to a number of revisions to the `picture` extension spec and Use Cases and Requirements doc, as well as bugs filed against the `srcset` extension spec. > > 1: https://github.com/organizations/ResponsiveImagesCG/dashboard/issues/repos?direction=desc&state=closed Sorry—broken link! `picture` extension spec: https://github.com/ResponsiveImagesCG/picture-element/issues Use Cases and Requirements Doc: https://github.com/ResponsiveImagesCG/ri-usecases/issues Reference Chromium implementation issues: https://github.com/ResponsiveImagesCG/picture-refimp/issues > > >> >> -- >> Marcos Caceres >> >> http://datadriven.com.au >> >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 16:14:30 UTC