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

Re: What do we do with picture?

From: Shane Hudson <Shane@ShaneHudson.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 21:55:16 +0100
Message-ID: <CANYFvNPj=v4B4TNM0LgouQ01xVnvpfvcagKdb6ZoMZeNEJXZXA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Cc: "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
I agree with publishing <picture> as a Note. The srcN proposal is not
flawless but it is fairly intuitive and does not require the new element.


On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:28 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



Shane Hudson (Website Developer -


@ShaneHudson <https://twitter.com/#!/ShaneHudson> / +Shane
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 20:56:06 UTC

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