- From: L. David Baron via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 22:05:07 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> I think there's no reason why this requirement should be on the usage of EXIF, instead on the feature that _overrides_ (and thus exposes) `EXIF`, such as `image-orientation` and `image-resolution` CSS properties. I think I agree with this. In other words, I think `image-orientation` is a transition mechanism to fix the historic bug that we haven't honored EXIF orientation data as a part of the image format, which it should really be considered to be a part of. We'd like to end up in a world where browsers (like other applications) consider the EXIF orientation as part of the image format. The problem that leads to an extra bit of information (on top of the pretty substantial amount of information from the width and height) is the ability to *choose* between honoring and not honoring the EXIF orientation. One solution suggested for that problem has been to ignore the EXIF orientation for cross-origin images without appropriate CORS headers. But an alternative that would still avoid exposing the bit of information, is to make the transition for cross-origin images happen faster (maybe instantaneously) than the transition for same-origin images. That is, the thing that exposes the additional bit of information isn't honoring the EXIF orientation, it's exposing a *toggle* to enable/disable honoring the EXIF orientation. And I'd rather end up honoring it all the time than never. In other words, I'd rather end up in a situation where we can just treat the EXIF orientation data as part of the image format, for all images. -- GitHub Notification of comment by dbaron Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5165#issuecomment-663255226 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2020 22:05:18 UTC