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

Hi Edward,

I'm not sure if you saw this on the thread about the picture element CfC:
after understanding that the two specifications are not competing with each
other but are meant to complete each other to cover the responsive images
use cases, I was left to wonder why we have two separate specifications.
I'm wondering what your position is on this? Would be able to work with
picture element proponents to come up with one specification to cover a
broader range of the user cases?


On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:31 AM, Edward O'Connor <> wrote:

> Hi Fred,
> You wrote:
> > If the 'picture' and 'srcset' proposals are limited to[] using only
> > information available pre-layout[] it may not be proper for ambiguity
> > in the RICG proposals to delay other development work in an area that
> > needs urgent attention.
> I'd like to clarify two things:
> 1) The srcset="" specification is not a proposal of the Responsive
>    Images Community Group, although feedback from the members of that
>    group have certainly contributed to the feature's design.
> 2) By working on the srcset="" nor <picture> specifications within this
>    working group, those working on them are not delaying other work that
>    you or other WG members may want to take on. In particular, if you
>    would like to work on a proposal for an adaptive images feature that
>    relies on layout information, please do so! I would be happy to
>    review a draft in that area.
> > It is not immediately obvious to me how the specialized 'picture' and
> > 'srcset' solutions proposed by the RICG could fit alongside more
> > general solutions and it is likely that more general solution would
> > subsume the current proposals.
> I think we can address such confusion within these drafts when and if a
> more general solution is produced.
> Thanks,
> Ted

Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2013 22:39:54 UTC