>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 09:51:50 UTC