On 25/11/13 10:32, Kornel Lesiński wrote:
On 25 November 2013 08:00:10 Yoav Weiss <y...@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.
