- From: James Graham <james@hoppipolla.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:01:45 +0000
- To: whatwg@lists.whatwg.org
On 25/11/13 10:32, Kornel LesiĆski wrote: > On 25 November 2013 08:00:10 Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote: > >> It contains some parts that I'm not sure have a consensus around them >> yet: >> * It defines <picture> as controlling <img>, where earlier on this >> list we >> discussed mostly the opposite (<img> querying its parent <picture>, if >> one >> exists) > > Controlling image is a great idea. It greatly simplifies the spec and > hopefully implementations as well. > > I chose not to expose that implementation detail, assuming that one day > (when all UAs, crawlers implement it) we will not need explicit <img> > fallback any more. This suffers from some of the same problems that were previously brought up with <picture>; because it defines a new element that should behave like <img> you have to test that the new element works in all the same places that <img> ought to work. The fact that the spec tries to define this in terms of the shadow DOM isn't really helpful; you still need to ensure that implementations actually proxy the underlying <img> correctly in all situations. The advantage of the scheme that zcorpan proposed is that there is no magic proxy; we just add a capability to <img> to select its source using more than just a src attribute. This has better fallback than your design and is easier to implement.
Received on Monday, 25 November 2013 11:02:18 UTC