W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > February 2013

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

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 14:24:32 +0000
To: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Cc: Anselm Hannemann <info@anselm-hannemann.com>, Robin Berjon <robin@w3.org>, Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>, public-html-admin@w3.org, public-respimg@w3.org
Message-ID: <F579E6754D614D55A0A28BCE7E8B23BA@marcosc.com>

On Thursday, 7 February 2013 at 12:13, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Anselm Hannemann <info@anselm-hannemann.com (mailto:info@anselm-hannemann.com)> wrote:
> > On Thursday, 7. February 2013 at 10:11, Robin Berjon wrote:
> > > On 06/02/2013 23:39 , Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > > There's still some open discussion about which use cases need to be  
> > > tackled, and how.
> >  
> >  
> >  
> > While this is true, both specifications currently tackle different use-cases and for now are not yet fully compatible to each other.
> > This should be fixed by next weeks but the use-cases will always be different:
> > - picture is for art-direction mainly and is a completely new element while  
> > - the srcset attribute is an attribute which should be usable on picture and img element.
> >  
> > For that I think authoring both specifications together to reach a good goal is important but I don't think we should merge
> > both specifications into one covering all.
> Why not? I assume you intend them to be merged into the HTML spec eventually, so they will get together anyway. Also, the @srcset attribute is used in both, and defining the same in two different specifications doesn't make much sense to me.
Yeah, I agree. Like I said previously, the way the srcset is written at the moment doesn't make this possible… but keeping my fingers crossed that we can work on that. Generally speaking, it's getting the use cases addressed that matters most:)
> I support the publication of the use case document as FPWD, but I'd like to see the two almost-compatible proposals for <picture> and @srcset be merged and published together as a FPWD, so we don't put browsers into the difficult position of needing to choose which of the two @srcset specifications to follow and implement and we don't end up with incompatible implementations.

I hate to "+1", but +1 :)  The reality is that this depends on browser makers actually backing the proposals and expressing more clearly how they would like to see this standardised (the RICG has, to the best of it's abilities, documented the use cases as requested by folks at the WHATWG). We also understand it's difficult for browser vendors to comment on future features of products. but not sure how to proceed without an explicit nod, at least on what use cases browser vendors feel are important for the benefit of their users and developers.    

Marcos Caceres
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 14:25:06 UTC

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