- From: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 16:40:30 +0200
- To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Cc: "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACj=BEjPa6+5MgJCB9JuN8maWiEZOX-tH9Spvn9nOBZmm4jgCg@mail.gmail.com>
I agree with publishing as a note, for all the reasons you mentioned. Are there similar pressures to move the use-cases document forward? Or is this just for specs? On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote: > Hi All, > The Editors of the <picture> spec been under pressure from the HTML > Working Group Chairs to take some action with regards to picture. We can > continue to move it forward along the recommendation track or we can > "end-of-life" it by publishing it as a Note. In light of the src-n > proposal, I'm inclined for us to publish it as a Note. The rationale being > that src-n does exactly the same things that <picture> was doing, but > overcomes the shortcomings with <picture>, in particular: > > 1. we don't need a new element (picture) that represent something that > semantically already exists in the platform (img). > 2. we don't need to special-case the <source> element. > 3. we don't need to have an element that accepts child elements (which > browser vendors don't like). > 4. we don't need to define all sorts of complex interactions between > <source> and <picture> by monkey patching "media elements". > > The src-n proposal is by no means perfect - particularly the viewport-url > syntax might need a little more love; but apart from that, it's basically > all the goodness of <picture> in a nice little img package. > > So, does anyone have any objections to us publishing picture as a Note? > > -- > Marcos Caceres > > > >
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 14:40:58 UTC