- From: Anselm Hannemann <info@anselm-hannemann.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 18:26:10 +0100
- To: <public-respimg@w3.org>
Looks fine for me :) -A. Am 16.01.2013 18:03, schrieb Mathew Marquis: > Related, this is the text I’ve prepared for the HTML WG outlining the > need for the two syntaxes: > >> The `srcset` syntax defines various resources and “hints” to the >> browser, so as to determine the most appropriate image source based on >> criteria such as display density [1]. The browser would then have the >> option of applying these rules or overriding the author’s >> specifications to provide optimizations related to available >> bandwidth, user preference[2], and so on. >> >> The `picture` element defines conditions under which the browser >> must not be allowed to opt out of heuristics used to determine which >> resource to present. This includes image source sizes designed to >> align with layouts variations specified in CSS media queries[3,4,5], >> or content variations for increased clarity and focus based on the >> client’s display size [6]. >> >> The combination of the `srcset` and `picture` syntaxes fulfills our >> use case requirements[7] as outlined. >> >> [1] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#resolution-switching [1] >> >> [2] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#user-control-over-sources >> [2] >> >> [3] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#design-breakpoints [3] >> >> [4] >> http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#matching-media-features-and-media-types >> [4] >> >> [5] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#relative-units [5] >> >> [6] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#art-direction [6] >> >> [7] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#requirements-0 [7] > > Feedback—as always—is highly welcomed. > > -M > > On Jan 16, 2013, at 11:27 AM, Mathew Marquis wrote: > >> It’s entirely possible that I missed an email in the shuffle >> somewhere, but I’m not reading this as the HTML WG pushing for >> `srcset` specifically—it looks like they were just addressing that >> bug, in that there was some question as to whether both proposals >> should be handled as extension specs. It’s a bug from back when the >> idea of extension specs was just being introduced, and I think some of >> the commenters were unsure as to whether they held all the same weight >> as features added to the HTML spec proper. I don’t read Maciej’s >> message as there being any immediate action taken by the HTML WG. >> >> If nothing else, I think this email is a good way to kick off the >> FPWD conversation. So, impromptu vote: does anyone have any objection >> to submitting the `picture` extension specification ( >> http://picture.responsiveimages.org [8] ) to the HTML WG, for >> consideration as a First Public Working Draft? >> >> -M >> >> On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:17 AM, Marcos Caceres 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. >> >>> >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Publi >> >>> 26.html> >> te type="cite"> >> At this time, the Chairs propose to decide by consensus to address >> the new I >> >>> es 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 >> d encouraged and silence will be considered as agre >> >>> >> >> If your comment is an objection, please clearly >> >>> e with the W3C Process, objections SHOULD cite substantive >>> arguments and propose changes that would remove the objection. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Regards, >> type="cite">Maciej > > > > Links: > ------ > [1] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#resolution-switching > [2] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#user-control-over-sources > [3] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#design-breakpoints > [4] > > http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#matching-media-features-and-media-types > [5] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#relative-units > [6] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#art-direction > [7] http://usecases.responsiveimages.org/#requirements-0 > [8] http://picture.responsiveimages.org
Received on Wednesday, 16 January 2013 17:26:39 UTC