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

Re: [css-color] Feedback on the image-orientation CSS property

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 16:45:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBHVzCoi-_rAvYZ5sSPkXqn=B4H-yJapsK13xrNFrLocw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Novosad <junov@google.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Justin Novosad <junov@google.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> In this discussion thread, concerns were raised regarding whether
> image-orientation should be a CSS property:
> http://lists.whatwg.org/htdig.cgi/whatwg-whatwg.org/2014-April/254148.html
> tl;dr:
> * Property should be move to markup: it is more semantic than stylistic. Image
> orientation affects the content.
> * It would be desirable to take image orientation into account when drawing an
> image to 2D canvas or WebGL. If orientation is expressed by a CSS property,
> that would imply making canvas draws dependent on style computation.

I've got no problem with it also existing in HTML.  It's a CSS
property because that's where the issue was raised, and it didn't seem
inappropriate to be done there, and because if you want to use this
property at all, you probably want to apply it to all the images in
your document, which is simple to do with CSS.

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:45 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> It seems reasonable to me to have an attribute that says that the
> EXIF orientation should be honored be part of the content.  I don't
> know if the rest of what's in image-orientation is needed (either in
> markup or in CSS); I'd be happy to drop it from Gecko with such a
> replacement, assuming that it's not going to lead to a huge amount
> of churn (since image-orientation is already something we're
> shipping and depend on internally, and I'd rather not have to redo
> it multiple times).

I wouldn't be opposed to dropping all values but "from-image" and
"0deg".  The explicit values all came first, when I inherited this
spec; I added "from-image" later.  I don't think the explicit values
are at all useful, honestly.

Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 23:46:03 UTC

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