Re: [whatwg] responsive imgs proposition (Re: The src-N proposal)

2013-11-11 Thread Adam Barth
Unfortunately, we can't add new tags to head. If the parser sees a tag it doesn't recognize in the head, it creates a fake body tag and pushes the tag down into the body. Adam On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Bruno Racineux wrote: > Here is a complementary approach to the src-N syntax, I'd lik

[whatwg] responsive imgs proposition (Re: The src-N proposal)

2013-11-11 Thread Bruno Racineux
Here is a complementary approach to the src-N syntax, I'd like to present for discussion. The goal is: 1. Address all use cases in a similar way as src-N does without the 'N' part. 2. Cut the verbose to a 'strict' minimum with reusable OO definitions. 3. Provide a vocabulary that is easy to parse

Re: [whatwg] Questions regarding Path object

2013-11-11 Thread Elliott Sprehn
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > On Nov 12, 2013, at 7:19 AM, Elliott Sprehn wrote: > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Dirk Schulze > wrote: > > > >> ... > >> > >> > >> The SVG WG would like to start using the 'Path' object for its objects > as > >> well. We'd like t

Re: [whatwg] Questions regarding Path object

2013-11-11 Thread Dirk Schulze
On Nov 12, 2013, at 7:19 AM, Elliott Sprehn wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > >> ... >> >> >> The SVG WG would like to start using the 'Path' object for its objects as >> well. We'd like this to be a generic object that can be used by other parts >> of the web p

Re: [whatwg] Questions regarding Path object

2013-11-11 Thread Elliott Sprehn
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > ... > > > The SVG WG would like to start using the 'Path' object for its objects as > well. We'd like this to be a generic object that can be used by other parts > of the web platform. > It would be strange to require a canvas context just to

Re: [whatwg] Questions regarding Path object

2013-11-11 Thread Dirk Schulze
Sent from my iPhone On Nov 12, 2013, at 6:18 AM, "Elliott Sprehn" mailto:espr...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Rik Cabanier mailto:caban...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Jürg Lehni mailto:li...@scratchdisk.com>> wrote: > Thinking more about this di

Re: [whatwg] Questions regarding Path object

2013-11-11 Thread Elliott Sprehn
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:07 AM, Jürg Lehni wrote: > > > Thinking more about this discussion, I had an idea for an approach that > > would avoid such future clashes all together: > > > > Instead of exposing constructors, why not simply expose

Re: [whatwg] The src-N proposal

2013-11-11 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Edward O'Connor wrote: > Hi Henri, > > You wrote: > >> Just like AppCache, srcset is not something that you can iterate on. >> You can't add features without breaking compatibility. > > This is incorrect. The srcset="" parser is specced such that new > descriptors

Re: [whatwg] The src-N proposal

2013-11-11 Thread Edward O'Connor
Hi Henri, You wrote: > Just like AppCache, srcset is not something that you can iterate on. > You can't add features without breaking compatibility. This is incorrect. The srcset="" parser is specced such that new descriptors can be added in a backwards-compatible way. Ted

Re: [whatwg] The src-N proposal

2013-11-11 Thread Henri Sivonen
On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:46 PM, Adam Barth wrote: > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Ilya Grigorik wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. >> wrote: >>> It's easy to look at something more complex than what you're used to >>> and dismiss all the excess as unneeded, but it's re