Re: What do we do with picture?

I'm not ready to throw in the towel on the picture element. I've been working on the new National Geographic Magazine web app (where you can imagine the photographs are pretty important) where we found <picture> to be the hands down best solution for what we need. We're pretty close to launching with a polyfilled <picture> element—I can't imagine we're the only ones.

<pictures>'s verbosity doesn't concern me as there are already elegant solutions to deal with it and it is much more extensible and future friendly.

While I understand people's exhaustion it seems like a real shame to settle because we lost a war of attrition.

On October 18, 2013 at 10:48:35 AM, Aaron Gustafson (aaron@easy-designs..net) wrote:

On Friday, October 18, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Kornel Lesiński wrote:
Sorry, my mail somehow got truncated. Hopefully will work this time:

That's my thought too. I'm just tired by the stalemate we've got.

I think srcN is good enough and support it since that's better than
debating forever, but really I'd prefer <picture>.

It's just a shame that we'll have a hack baked into the platform forever
just because browser vendors want an easier option now :(

"src2" looks like an API failure comparable to Win32's CreateWindowEx, and
adds to the mess HTML already is.

<picture> has easier to understand syntax, better extensibility (I'm scared
to think how srcN microsyntax will look like if we need to add couple more
attributes in there), and finally fixes accessibility mistakes <img> made..

Right now no solution is implemented yet, so <picture> can still be *the*
solution merely if a couple of browser vendors chooses to impement it first.


Well put!

Cheers,

Aaron