Re: What do we do with picture?

That's my thought too. I'm just tired by the

-- 
regards, Kornel



On 18 October 2013 05:38:06 Aaron Grogg <aarontgrogg@gmail.com> wrote:
> From a purest-view, I really prefer <picture>.  I think the code is more
> readable, more memorable, and also like how the <picture> syntax mirrors
> <video>.  It almost (gasp!) feels like consistency...
>
> From a pragmatist-view, I really want something yesterday, and if either
> srcset or srcN is going to get us to a responsive image solution faster,
> then "ok, whatever".  I know, however, that I am *always* going to have to
> look up syntaxes for both of these solutions, but then I don't build
> websites for me, I build them for users.
>
> So, I guess, whatever gets us to a solution faster, I'm good with.
>
> Atg
>
>
> Atg
> ----------------------------------------------------
> *Aaron T. Grogg
> *
> *website: http://aarontgrogg.com/*
> *email: aarontgrogg@gmail.com
> *twitter: @aarontgrogg
> *skype: aarontgrogg*
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:30 AM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, October 17, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Simon Pieters wrote:
> >
> > > Similarly for crossorigin, usemap, ismap, width, height, .naturalWidth,
> > > .naturalHeight, .complete, painting on a canvas, interaction with CSS
> > > stuff like object-fit, UI features like the context menu, and so on.
> >
> > This can't be understated. There are all massive free wins that we had
> > completely left out of picture due to complexity.
> >
> > --
> > Marcos Caceres
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >