- From: Sander Tekelenburg <st@isoc.nl>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:27:52 +0200
- To: public-html@w3.org
At 22:47 -0700 UTC, on 2007-07-02, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: > On Jul 2, 2007, at 10:17 PM, Robert Burns wrote: [...] > I haven't really made an argument for or against <picture> myself. > However, to make the case for it, you'd need to show how to achieve > the following with a single markup fragment -- how <picture> would be > defined and what markup you would use to get these effects: [...] > 4) Would show the image in currently existing graphical browsers that > don't recognize the new tag (presumably by falling back to an <img> > or <object>). > 5) Would present the non-image fallback content in existing visual > text-only browsers (such as Lynx) that do not support the new tag. > 6) Would present the non-image fallback content in existing screen > reader/browser combos that do not support the new tag. Yeah, those are the big ones. Mainly, how to not have <picture>'s textual fallback rendered in pre-HTML5 UAs. An attempt at finding a possible solution: <http://santek.no-ip.org/~st/tests/picturetag/>. -- Sander Tekelenburg The Web Repair Initiative: <http://webrepair.org/>
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 09:33:59 UTC