W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > November 2012

Re: RICG Planning Meeting Minutes - 11/14/12

From: Odin Hørthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:35:43 +0100
To: public-respimg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wn2qptp249xobu@odinho-fido>
On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:05:50 +0100, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>  

> Drupal 8 launch
> JAW: Drupal has `picture` support in version 8 - but its at risk if the  
> spec is not stable
> JAW: It may have to be dropped if `picture` won't look like it's going  
> to happen by April
> MC: AVG standardization process takes 5 years
> MM: Will follow up with Drupal team to see if FPWD by Feb 1 will cut it.
> MC: We should investigate ways to make it work for Drupal 8 as a "Plan B"
> MM: Suggest use of div-based `picturefill`.
> JB: That could work.
> JAW: Will look into it.
> ACTION: Follow up with Drupal team to see if FPWD by Feb 1 code freeze  
> will be sufficient (JAW, MM).

No-no. :-)

This ACTION is not the way to go. As Mat suggested, using div-based  
`picturefill` is the way to go. To use an actual <picture> element, the  
browser support be developed and _shipped_ by /at least/ one browser  
vendor. Preferably two or more.

We don't want anyone to use a tag before it is actually implemented. We  
will be shooting ourselves in the foot (or actually, Drupal will be  
shooting us in the foot). The design of <picture> will be hampered by how  
Drupal is doing their implementation. The spec might be frozen in place  
before we've figured all this out. Suddenly there's lots of legacy tags  
that implementations would have to consider in order to implement this (in  
order not to break it).

Like <image>, <picture> could very well become a "do not touch" backwards  
compat problem so that we can't use this tag. I think this a supremely bad  
idea, and I am very much against it.

You say stable, and that FPWD or CR or whatever can be called that. The  
only way to see if something is stable is that it _both_ has shipped  
browser implementations (more than one) and some usage on the web. The  
former has to come first.

This has only to do with using the actual, real <picture> element, not the  
functionality. The div-based `picturefill` doesn't hamper any future  
implementation efforts of a real in-browser <picture> element. I hope  
Drupal can go with that one.

Odin Hørthe Omdal (Velmont/odinho) · Core, Opera Software, http://opera.com
Received on Tuesday, 20 November 2012 13:36:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:06:08 UTC