On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:30 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 08/03/2011 02:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:56 PM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> >> wrote: >>> We have multiple implementations of image-resolution, so that should >>> definitely stay. And I remember writing tests for image-orientation >>> for HP, so that probably also should stay unless someone can make a >>> case for that part of the spec being unstable. >> >> I'd like to synchronize the syntax of image-resolution with the syntax >> of the resolution argument in image() (basically, this would involve >> adding 'snap' to image-resolution and 'from-image' to image()). >> However, that can be done in Images 4. >> >> Everyone else, are you okay with me adding image-resolution and >> image-orientation back Images 3? Should they be marked as at-risk, or >> put in plainly? > > I suggest to mark image-orientation at-risk, but image-resolution we have > two implementations of so I don't think it's needed. Or add 'snap' to it > and mark 'snap' as at-risk. :) I've gone with the latter. I also took the opportunity to rewrite the value descriptions for image-resolution so that they're actually testable. ^_^ ~TJReceived on Thursday, 4 August 2011 00:18:31 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:43 GMT