RE: CfC: to publish "The srcset attribute" specification as a First Public Working Draft (FPWD)

The use cases and requirements define the scope of the work and it does appear that the scope is limited to solutions that only use pre-layout (media feature) inputs to choose between images.  If there is no clarity on the scope then it affects people wanting to address other use cases and it might not be reasonable for you to be delaying their work or misleading them to believe that you will address their use cases.

Perhaps the scope need not be well defined and this should not block FPWD, but I am not in a position to make this judgement.  If it were my proposal I would revise it to clarify any confusion and re-submit it because the same issues will just come up again when a wider and larger audience reviews it.

cheers
Fred

> Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 08:42:24 +0000
> From: w3c@marcosc.com
> To: fredandw@live.com
> CC: paul.cotton@microsoft.com; public-html-admin@w3.org; public-respimg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: CfC: to publish "The srcset attribute" specification as a  First Public Working Draft (FPWD)
> 
> 
> 
> On Tuesday, 5 February 2013 at 02:06, Fred Andrews wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I object to the "The srcset attribute" specification being
> > published as a FPWD on the basis that the design makes no attempt
> > to meet many of use cases and requirements of the 'Use Cases and
> > Requirements for Standardizing Responsive Images' and that the
> > editors refuse to consider design changes that would meet these
> > use cases
> 
> As one of the editors of the Use Cases document, I'd like to say that both Hixie and Ted have, in fact, attempted to work with the RICG to address all the use cases listed in the Use Cases and Requirements document with srcset (bugs are listed in [1], where you can see the discussions that took place). The fact that some of those use case are not *yet* met is not from a lack of trying on both sides and certainly not grounds to block publication - some use cases were poorly articulated, wishful thinking, or just invalid. The point of the FPWD _is_ to help us move forward and to see if there is support for either or both approaches. We don't expect to a have a complete solution as of FPWD - in fact, we know there are many problems with both proposed solutions. 
> 
> Fred, you clearly know what you are talking about here (technically, probably more than I do and I both implemented a version of srcset and co-wrote <picture>). Can I please ask you to remove your objection and work with us constructively. Blocking publication of either spec does not  help the specs get the wider review they need. All your issues can be, and should be, addressed after we publish. 
>  
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-respimg/2012Nov/0024.html
> 
> -- 
> Marcos Caceres
> http://datadriven.com.au
> 
> 
> 
>