- From: Attiks <attiks@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 16:43:07 +0100
- To: public-respimg@w3.org
All, This will be changed in Drupal before a dev release is available, I understand your concerns and I agree that it might be a problem. This will be changed before February 1st (or earlier). But we have a feature freeze on December 1st, so it's a bit hectic. Cheers, Peter On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Attiks <attiks@gmail.com> wrote: > All, > > This will be changed in Drupal before a dev release is available, I > understand your concerns and I agree that it might be a problem. This > will be changed before February 1st (or earlier). > > Cheers, > Peter > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Odin Hørthe Omdal <odinho@opera.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:05:50 +0100, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 19:01:44 UTC