W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2014

RE: Image orientation for backgrounds

From: Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 21:07:06 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <a7603f1d7411473b8a0b041e1378f941@BL2PR03MB260.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
"Friendlier to the future" sounds good to me.  I'd rather the EXIF rotation data be honored by default in cases where there's not a compatibility risk.

Thanks,
-Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:38 PM
> To: Rik Cabanier
> Cc: L. David Baron; Boris Zbarsky; www-style list
> Subject: Re: Image orientation for backgrounds
> 
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:20 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday 2014-04-15 13:43 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> >> >> Currently
> >> >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-images-3/#the-image-orientation is
> >> >> explicitly specified to not affect background images.  However, a
> >> >> use case was brought up that really wants orientation based on
> >> >> EXIF metadata for backgrounds: user-provided wallpapers in web
> apps.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not saying we should make image-orientation apply to
> >> >> backgrounds, but we need some mechanism (e.g. via image()?) for
> >> >> having backgrounds that respect EXIF metadata...
> >> >
> >> > I think the way that fits best with other plans is probably adding
> >> > an argument to the image() function (also in css-images).
> >>
> >> I agree. The question is just what to name the value.  We can't use
> >> from-image, as it's too generic.  Maybe rotation-from-image?
> >> auto-rotate?  native-orientation?
> >
> >
> > Can't you just make it the default behavior with image()? I think
> > everyone would want the EXIF data to be honored.
> 
> That's not clear.  People use images with bad exif data all over the place, or
> else we wouldn't have to have this as a switch; we'd just mandate that
> browsers respected EXIF.
> 
> On the other hand, image() is a new space, and we already have some
> requirements on it designed to make it friendlier to the future.  I'm not
> opposed to requiring EXIF honoring if other people are okay with it.
> 
> ~TJ

Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2014 21:07:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:21 UTC