- From: Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 09:54:07 -0400
- To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Cc: Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, public-html <public-html@w3.org>
On Sunday, Sep 9, 2012, at 8:43 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > Hi Steve, > > Thanks for your feedback. That agrees with my initial reaction - > thanks for confirming. > I'll plan to move that branch to B3 where it can wait until there will > be a HTML.next spec. Great news! The current picture proposal does rely on `srcset` in part, however—for resolution switching only, based on the original `srcset` proposal rather than the extended syntax since proposed by the WHATWG. As such, I’m not sure how it would be best to proceed here. I’m happy to take point on submitting a version of the `srcset` proposal reduced to that single function, if that makes the most sense, perhaps in a separate branch — then that and the extended syntax branches could then be merged when the time comes. If including a reduced `srcset` spec would add significant complication, it’s worth mentioning that `picture` *can* function using media queries alone—it’s a bit more complicated to author, however. As an aside: moving this workflow to GitHub is a *huge* step in encouraging participation from the developer community. You’re doing great work! > > Regards, > Silvia. > > On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Silvia, >> >> many thanks for your work! >> >>> * feature/whatwg_srcset >>> This patch introduces the @srcset attribute on images. >>> Review here:https://github.com/w3c/html/compare/master...feature;whatwg_srcset >>> >> >> >> Since the <picture> element is under active consideration by the WG >> and there is no consensus on srcset or <picture> >> >> I would suggest not to add srcset at this time. >> >> >> regards >> SteveF
Received on Sunday, 9 September 2012 13:54:32 UTC