- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 12:43:42 -0700
- To: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
- Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
On Oct 13, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com> wrote: > > In my experience, the implementors in the WHATWG can be fairly quick to propose and implement a feature—Maciej Stachowiak mentioned starting work on a native `srcset` implementation in the #whatwg IRC channel long before its extension specification was published. This leaves us with a fairly uneven playing field: if members of the WHATWG are key decision-makers in terms of features that see immediate implementation, all proposals but theirs are at a disadvantage. <chair hat off> Here are some relevant points: - The WebKit project generally considers inclusion in the WHATWG spec to be sufficient in order to implement a feature, even if the feature is not in any w3c spec (get/putImageDataHD is a recent example). I believe this is true for other vendors too. - Relative to addition to the WHATWG spec, we waited a fair bit before even looking at srcset, in part due to the initial controversy, but were heartened by the addition of aspects of srcset to the <picture> proposal. - The incomplete implementation of srcset I started on only currently supports the "x" specifier so it's to some extent a common subset between <picture> and srcset. (I hope to get back to it soon, it is sort of a hobby project for me). - I don't see strong project consensus in favor of implementing <picture> in WebKit at this time, and mixed feelings about the "w"/"h" specifiers of srcset. You are correct more generally that proposals with implementor buy-in (at the level of people who write code and/or make feature decisions) are likely to be at an advantage, particularly in a standards process that at some point requires implementations to advance. Regards, Maciej
Received on Saturday, 13 October 2012 19:44:11 UTC