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

Re: WebP, anyone using it?

From: David Demaree <ddemaree@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:51:29 -0700
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
CC: Matthew Wilcox <mail@matthewwilcox.com>, Tom Lane <tom@tomlane.me>, Peter Gasston <pgasston@gmail.com>, David Newton <david@davidnewton.ca>, François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <63EABCE4-035E-4BB7-8EC2-D6A5261F0445@adobe.com>
On Oct 16, 2012, at 10:32 AM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

> Hi David,
> Welcome to the group! :) 

Thanks! Excited to be here!

> Having said that, as a group, we cannot fixate solely on <picture>. It may be <picture> is the right solution, but maybe img@srcset is… or maybe there is another solution that we haven't even thought out yet!  
> We need to be open to new ideas as we try to understand the problem space (otherwise, we have a solution looking for a problem, which is bad). Furthermore, if we get too precious about <picture>, we will take it personally every time someone points out issues with it - in other words, everyone should embrace img@srcset as tightly as you do <picture>, or potentially any other solution that comes along (so long as the solution meets our use cases and requirements).  

I should stress that while I like <picture>, and have some concerns about @srcset syntax, I absolutely think there's room for both. 

@srcset solves the problem of images that are semantically part of the document content, and have a single intrinsic size, but which are available at several levels of resolution/quality, whereas <picture> goes degrees further of both complexity and control. @srcset is probably the wrong solution for changing the dimensions of an image to suit a smaller viewport (i.e., the art direction use case), but it's the right solution for a logo that should be served at quad-resolution for Retina displays with no other special case needs.

Of course, if another proposal comes along I'm open to anything. I'm not married to any proposal except the idea that this problem ought to be solved.

>> WebP vs. PNG vs. Microsoft's JPEG-whatever is interesting, but ultimately could result in unnecessary fragmentation in an area of web technology that's been stable for years. (And I will allow, one fear I have about a type specifier is that then we'll all be expected to produce "bulletproof" responsive images markup. I certainly don't want images to turn into Web Fonts 2: Responsive Boogaloo.)  
> Oh, we so need to trademark that! that's so going on a t-shirt! :D   

Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2012 21:33:40 UTC

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