W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > October 2019

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-images] Should the values of image-orientation include the <angle> variants? (#4164)

From: Erik Demaine via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 15:30:58 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-547480878-1572363057-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I'd like to request `image-orientation: none` which remains quite useful.  (The original post asks about the angle variants, but [at least one comment](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4164#issuecomment-525074264) suggest removing `image-orientation` altogether.)

[My web platform](https://github.com/edemaine/coauthor/) [jumps through hoops](https://github.com/edemaine/coauthor/blob/master/client/messageImage.coffee#L29-L54) to `transform` images to correctly orient them (with still-correct scale and bounding box) according to their EXIF data, so that I don't need to modify the files themselves.

If a browser were to suddenly respect EXIF data, this would break how things are currently rendered (double rotation).  I can remove my workaround code eventually, but not until all browsers respect EXIF data.  I'd need `image-orientation: none` to handle the interim case where some browsers want to respect EXIF data and some don't (to make them act the same: not respecting), or at the very least, some kind of reflection mechanism so that I can tell what type of browser I'm on (EXIF respecting or not).

Regarding angle variants: Services that strip EXIF data from the JPEG might still store that metadata in their database, which would make the angle variant useful for their own rendering. (Though I could also see them leaving just the Orientation EXIF data.)  I could also see a human user enjoying the option to manually rotate a deep-embedded EXIF-stripped JPEG via CSS, even if they have to figure out the rotation manually.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by edemaine
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4164#issuecomment-547480878 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2019 15:31:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:55 UTC