Re: handle ISSUE-207 responsive-images consistently with Plan 2014

Does this preclude introducing the picture element in the future? I feel there's definitely a use case for both picture and img@srcset, and if there's some support behind fast-tracking the latter that seems like a good thing for responsive images, so long as it's not blocking progress on all the other use cases this group is advocating for.

Are there any issues with the particular img@srcset spec they want to move forward with?

- DD

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 16, 2013, at 9:18 AM, "Marcos Caceres" <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

> FYI… thoughts on how the group should proceed? Should we support the HTMLWG moving forward with img@srcset? Having a formal position as a group would be ideal.  
> 
> 
> Forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
>> To: public-html-admin@w3.org <public-html-admin@w3.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:04:58 AM
>> Subject: CfC: handle ISSUE-207 responsive-images consistently with Plan 2014
>> 
>> 
>> Based on a tracker request in <https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18384>, we have an issue raised regarding responsive images, and a request to incorporate a responsive image solution into HTML5 as soon as possible, rather than proceeding via extension specs: https://www.w3.org/html/wg/tracker/issues/207>.
>> 
>> It seems that many in the Working Group have been satisfied to handle responsive images consistently with Plan 2014, by proceeding via extension specifications for possible later reintegration. Previously, the Working Group decided to handle many existing open issues in this way: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2012Oct/0026.html>
>> 
>> At this time, the Chairs propose to decide by consensus to address the new ISSUE-207 responsive-images in the same way: by allowing extension specifications to proceed (as they already are) and by allowing an opportunity for future reintegration if the extensions can meet the HTML5 exit criteria.
>> 
>> If you have any comments or concerns about this CfC, please respond by Wednesday, January 23rd, 2013. Positive response is preferred and encouraged and silence will be considered as agreement with the proposal.
>> 
>> If your comment is an objection, please clearly state that. In accordance with the W3C Process, objections SHOULD cite substantive arguments and propose changes that would remove the objection.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Maciej
>> (on behalf of the HTML WG chairs)
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 15:24:03 UTC