Re: handling fallback content for still images

On Jul 3, 2007, at 08:04, Robert Burns wrote:

> On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:36 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>> (In any case, for <video>, <audio>, and <canvas>, I don't think that
>> separating these features from <object> makes things harder for  
>> authors.
>> If anything, I'd say it makes them simpler.)
> Would you say the same thing for <picture> ?

FWIW, <picture> is significantly different because:
  1) Still images already work *natively* in browsers and WYSIWYGish  
editors using <img> since way back when.
  2) Still images don't require an elaborate scripting API.
  3) From an authoring perspective the marginal cost of switching  
from <img> to <picture> is incredibly bad considering the marginal  
utility. (To go from a string fallback to markup-enable fallback, you  
break the compatibility with over a decade of software for the non- 
fallback content. And normal authors care about non-fallback more.)

Henri Sivonen

Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 07:07:20 UTC