W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-respimg@w3.org > October 2014

RE: Status of CSS image-set()

From: Adrian Roselli <Roselli@algonquinstudios.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 15:48:41 +0000
To: Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>, Jason Grigsby <jason@cloudfour.com>, Mat Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com>
CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, "public-respimg@w3.org" <public-respimg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <45ac26dae8f84444a1530414f7513d64@BLUPR01MB258.prod.exchangelabs.com>

Added to uservoice.modern.ie:

https://wpdev.uservoice.com/forums/257854-internet-explorer-platform/suggestions/6606738-image-set


(I was tied up yesterday so nice webmaster at Texas A&M added it based on my tweet, not me.)

6 votes so far, so feel free to vote it up, add comments (to refine it), etc.



>From: Greg Whitworth [mailto:gwhit@microsoft.com] 
>Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 10:57 AM
>
>We (IE) have it on our radar, but it isn't currently on our roadmap. You can go
>add it to uservoice.modern.ie and that will help us make decisions as it is an
>additional data point that we can take into account during planning.
>
>Greg
>
>From: Jason Grigsby [mailto:jason@cloudfour.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 5:57 PM
>
>I couldn't find any mention of image-set in the issues or roadmaps of Firefox
>and IE. Should I be looking for it under some other name? Or is it something
>that isn't even on their radars?
>
>On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Mat Marquis <mat@matmarquis.com> wrote:
>
>On Oct 23, 2014, at 4:36 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote:
>>> Tab Atkins would know more regarding the spec's state.
>>> As far as I can see from the code, Blink & WebKit only support the "-webkit"
>>> prefixed version of the syntax. I'm not aware of any other rendering engine
>>> that does.
>>
>> WebKit supports it prefixed, no one else does.  The current feature
>> set/syntax is stable.  I'd like to add a bit more to make it equal in
>> power to the <picture> element, but that wont' interfere with its
>> current syntax, which matches early srcset and does a decent job.
>>
>> ~TJ
>>
>Strongly in favor of getting some of the advanced `srcset` functionality specced
>for `img` into `image-set()`. Out-of-context +1 to sneaking in `type()`, too-I
>know you've brought that up a couple times before.
>
>-M

Received on Saturday, 25 October 2014 15:49:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:06:15 UTC