Re: CfC: handle ISSUE-207 responsive-images consistently with Plan 2014

I was talking about something that is relatively easy to digest - a couple
of paragraphs of actual summary text comparing the two. Certainly not a
list of URLs by themselves. Think more along the lines of a blog post.

Silvia.
On 18 Jan 2013 03:07, "Mathew Marquis" <mat@matmarquis.com> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Marcos Caceres
>
> http://datadriven.com.au
>
>
>
>
>