Hi, I'm as well am prefering the picture syntax and the fact that the polyfill have proven that it works even for older browser, I'm a bit worried on how src-N is going to behave on older browsers, would love to see a working polyfill before deciding to 'eliminate' the picture proposal. Cheers, Peter On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Kornel Lesiński <kornel@geekhood.net>wrote: > That's my thought too. I'm just tired by the > > -- > regards, Kornel > > On 18 October 2013 05:38:06 Aaron Grogg ** 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 >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Friday, 18 October 2013 09:13:37 UTC