4 ms·

sorry for the delay. As far as I am aware, none of the browsers expressed vocal and specific support for <picture>. In fact, as I understand it, a few had reser

by bsatrom 14y ago

sorry for the delay. As far as I am aware, none of the browsers expressed vocal and specific support for <picture>. In fact, as I understand it, a few had reservations about the element, but these were not expressed to the members of the Responsive Images Community Group either.

tptacek 14y ago
So when we say "developers", we mean "web content developers", and when we say things like "the expectation is that WHATWG (or whatever) will prioritize the needs of developers over everything else", we're saying "we expect the browser vendors to take dictation from the content developers"? And we think that's reasonable?
- bsatrom 14y ago
  "the expectation is that WHATWG (or whatever) will prioritize the needs of developers over everything else" Nope, not saying that at all. "we expect the browser vendors to take dictation from the content developers" Dictation no, participation yes. And that is reasonable.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Fair enough. But let me ask: what's your expectation as to "participation"? How much more priority do you think a standards group decision, unimplemented in any major browser, should get over a "feature request" bug filed in one of their bug trackers?
    - othermaciej 14y ago
      Most of the browser vendors care about standards groups and are highly influenced by what they say. Certainly that's true for WebKit-based browsers, where I have some first-hand knowledge. One dysfunction in this case is that the <picture> proposal was developed in a splinter group that didn't include browser vendor representatives and thus was somewhat disconnected from the larger conversation. I will also add that both browser vendors and standards groups care more about people's use cases than their concrete syntax ideas, and ideally people making proposals should learn to think that way as well.

4 ms·

sorry for the delay. As far as I am aware, none of the browsers expressed vocal and specific support for <picture>. In fact, as I understand it, a few had reser

by bsatrom 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago
So when we say "developers", we mean "web content developers", and when we say things like "the expectation is that WHATWG (or whatever) will prioritize the needs of developers over everything else", we're saying "we expect the browser vendors to take dictation from the content developers"? And we think that's reasonable?
- bsatrom 14y ago
  "the expectation is that WHATWG (or whatever) will prioritize the needs of developers over everything else" Nope, not saying that at all. "we expect the browser vendors to take dictation from the content developers" Dictation no, participation yes. And that is reasonable.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Fair enough. But let me ask: what's your expectation as to "participation"? How much more priority do you think a standards group decision, unimplemented in any major browser, should get over a "feature request" bug filed in one of their bug trackers?
    - othermaciej 14y ago
      Most of the browser vendors care about standards groups and are highly influenced by what they say. Certainly that's true for WebKit-based browsers, where I have some first-hand knowledge. One dysfunction in this case is that the <picture> proposal was developed in a splinter group that didn't include browser vendor representatives and thus was somewhat disconnected from the larger conversation. I will also add that both browser vendors and standards groups care more about people's use cases than their concrete syntax ideas, and ideally people making proposals should learn to think that way as well.