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

Re: Adaptive Image Element Proposal

From: Anselm Hannemann <info@anselm-hannemann.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 20:27:15 +0200
To: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Cc: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Mathew Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>, Peter Winnberg <peter.winnberg@gmail.com>, Steve Faulkner <faulkner.steve@gmail.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7C23A23A0F9E47DEAF8DDD3AAD0D26FA@anselm-hannemann.com>
Yes, you miss a point: 
In 10-15 years we are not needing the img-element anymore. But then it would be required by spec.
This is what I fear of.


Am Donnerstag, 6. September 2012 um 20:22 schrieb Adrian Roselli:

> > From: Anselm Hannemann [mailto:info@anselm-hannemann.com] 
> > 
> > > Hi Lief,
> > > > Needless complexity: The complexity is related to lack of support for
> > > > <picture> 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > That's right. That is why Mat will be changing the draft spec to use
> > > <img> with alt for the short text alternative not <picture> and a new
> > > text alternative method.
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Sep/0016.html
> > > 
> > 
> > What? Why do we rely on the img-fallback(!) now?
> > I always thought the img-element is not required but optional (for fallback
> > methods). If we now rely on img for alt-attribute this would require to alway
> > have an img-tag inside of the picture-tag. This is what I call complexity.
> > It might be handier to not have to specify 2 alt-attribute-values but longterm
> > it is bad spec. The only two valid strategies would be the long version inside
> > the picture-element or the alt-attribute for the picture-element.
> > 
> > Sorry, I speak for my own but this is a longterm consideration.
> <picture> needs a fallback of some sort otherwise users in current and older browsers won't see any image at all.
> <img> allows authors to specify a fallback image for those users who can see the image but don't have a <picture>-capable browser.
> For users who simply cannot see images (whether vision impairment or unfortunate connection), there still needs to be a text fallback somewhere in there. If <img> will be part of <picture> and <img> already has rules for @alt, then requiring @alt on <picture> just creates more complexity (room for error, mismatches, etc). Therefore, just lean on @alt from the <img> that will already be there.
> With this method the only complexity above what web developers do today is adding the <picture> and its children. And that additional complexity will only be there if a developer wants to use this new feature.
> This only addresses the short text alternative, but I think that's the one you are questioning.
> Is there a piece I am missing in my (attempted) logic? 
Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 18:27:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 6 September 2012 18:27:47 GMT