W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2012

Re: [css3-image] should we combine directional images and image-orientation? (was: [css3-images] image-orientation should say what images it applies to)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 18:09:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDC0qULyS06+EMS==oAJ2E0UrDm2o5UT+YnhQNzuKT7neQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Cc: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, ML publc-i18n-bidi <public-i18n-bidi@w3.org>
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 1:06 AM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu
<kennyluck@csail.mit.edu> wrote:
> (Cc +public-i18n-bidi)
>
> (12/03/15 6:46), L. David Baron wrote:
>> The 'image-orientation' property defined in
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#image-orientation should
>> specify what images it applies to.  Does it apply only to replaced
>> elements, or does it apply to other images (e.g., background images)
>> as well?
>
> If 'image-orientation' applies to other images, say, at least images
> specified with 'content', I think we should think about whether it's a
> good idea or not to fold 'ltr/rtl' of 'image()' into a value of
> image-orientation, given my concern about the current syntax of
> directional images in [1]. In particular, if we make 'image-orientation'
> inheritable (why is it not right now, by the way?), it be can naturally
> inherited into '::marker', like
>
>  ol, ul {
>    list-style-image: url(arrow-ltr.png);
>    image-orientation: flip;
>  }
>
>
> On the other hand, we can fold 'image-orientation' into the 'image()'
> syntax somehow. The advantage of this is that Web authors can have full
> control over which images (no matter it is a background-image or
> border-image) 'image-orientation' applies. The obvious drawback is that
> for the most common use case in the near feature
>
>  img { image-orientation: from-exif; }
>
> has to be as complicated as something like
>
>  ima { content: replaced image(attr(src) from-exif) }
>
> and seems a bit far from reality.
>
>
> Or do we think these two use cases are too far in concept so they should
> be addressed in different syntax?
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Mar/0243

We've made image-orientation inherited.

So that we can more properly address the issues around directional
images (what you raise, and others), we've punted this feature to
level 4.

I know you've already indicated that you're okay with whatever, so
this is just a heads-up about the edits.  ^_^

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2012 01:10:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 03:48:53 GMT