[whatwg] Correcting some misconceptions about Responsive Images

[Rafael Weinstein]

As a UA "implementor", this seem to me to be purely a success story
for the single reason that it drew so much developer participation.

Regardless of what makes it into the spec, the worst possible outcome
would be if the developer community learned the lesson that UA
implementors are hostile to/dismissive of their problems, ideas and
solutions.

It seems to me like there's a problem of "walking a mile in someone
else's shoes" in both directions, but ultimately developers are our
customers -- not vice versa.

If it's required for either "camp" to go the extra mile to accomodate
the other -- it seems to me that it ought to be us.

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:18 AM, James Graham <jgraham at opera.com> wrote:
>> FWIW I think that forming community groups that are limited in scope to
>> gathering and distilling the relevant use cases could be a functional way of
>> working. For example if, in this case, people had said "we will form a group
>> that will spend 4 weeks documenting and prioritising all the use cases that
>> a responsive images feature needs to cover" and then the results of that
>> work had been taken to a forum where browser implementors are engaged (e.g.
>> WHATWG), I think we would have had a relatively smooth ride toward a
>> universially acceptable solution.
>
> Yup.  This is basically what the CG *did*, in practice, and it was
> very useful.  There was an unfortunate expectation that their goal was
> to write spec text that would be simply adopted into the spec, though.
>  Making sure the expectations are clearer in the future would be a
> good move.
>
> ~TJ