[whatwg] Correcting some misconceptions about Responsive Images

[Tab Atkins Jr.]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Mathew Marquis <mat at matmarquis.com> wrote:
>>> I don’t think this is the case. The public has largely resigned this to “`srcset` is happening because the WHATWG said so,” for certain, and that doesn’t seem entirely false—but I don’t think “hopeless acceptance” is the situation at present. I’ve been off the grid for a few days, but as I catch up on the conversation it seems as though a number of the RICG’s members have been contributing to the incremental improvement of the `srcset` proposal. I’m all for it, of course, as the goal was never _this or that_ solution so much as a solution that covers our use cases in the most developer-friendly way possible—and above all else, a solution with the most benefit to users.
>>>
>>> The goal now—as ever—is the best possible solution. If we’re limited to `srcset`, then the goal is to make that as useful as possible. However, I’d be lying if I said it isn’t frustrating, feeling as though we’re all working from a forgone conclusion.
>>
>> It's unfortunate that there was an expectation set early in the RICG
>> that their purpose was to produce spec-ready text to be included into
>> HTML.  Hopefully we'll do a better job in the future communicating
>> that what's necessary is use-cases to design a feature around, so we
>> don't run into similar expectation mismatches.
>>
>> ~TJ
>
> You’re certainly right that it’s not worth bickering about, and I apologize if I came across that way.
>
> I only hope that “we’ll do a better job in the future” has no reflection on the current discussions — mis-matched processes are no reason to throw away useful data, after all, and the Community Group has no shortage of that.

Not at all.  The current discussion, and the data produced by the work
preceding it, is indeed very useful.

~TJ