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

Re: What do we do with picture?

From: Cory Brown <oh.wise.man@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 11:05:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKxo9DogTMpOHhjtKk9sJDeBDVgJk2tEoOmtYB-_1dYV=23yuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Cc: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
For what it's worth. I agree with Anselm. From a developers perspective, I
find <picture> to be far more maintainable and readable. srcN may be easier
to implement on the browser, but picture is easier to read and write, it is
a different element by design (It really serves a different purpose than
<img> which represents a single instance of a specific image where
<picture> represents a single instance of any number of possible images.) I
understand browser vendor's concerns, and they have to look out for their
interests, but on the dev side, <picture> seems like the way forward to me.


On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, October 17, 2013 at 3:40 PM, Yoav Weiss wrote:
> > 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?
> >
> Same with use cases. We can publish as a Note and we can continue to
> update it if we feel like it. The use cases document has been very useful
> and I can imagine it will continue to be so in the future. However, it's
> not a "spec".

Cory Brown
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 15:06:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:06:10 UTC