- From: Justin Novosad <junov@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 07:45:46 -0700
- To: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>
- Cc: whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Justin Novosad <junov@google.com> wrote: > > But why a new version of drawImage? Couldn't we just modify the existing > > drawImage definition to state that it takes into account the > > image-orientation property on the source image? The default value for > > image-orientation is 0deg, which corresponds to the current drawImage > > behavior. So I think we can make that change to the drawImage spec > without > > breaking stuff, as long as we make the change while image-orientation is > > still an experimental feature. > > Why is image-orientation in CSS for <img>? For background-image that > makes sense, but if you are actually affecting the semantics of the > image that is displayed, it seems like it should be in HTML or a hint > in the image format. I was wondering the same thing. From the image-orientation spec: "It applies only to content images (e.g. replaced elements and generated content), not decorative images (such as background-image)." So this property apparently has a considerably larger scope than just correcting the orientation of images from files, which I guess explains why it is in CSS. > (My reply to Boris was going to be that drawImage() should follow > whatever flag we introduce for <img> to have this behavior, seems > weird for that flag to be in CSS though.) > > > -- > http://annevankesteren.nl/ >
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 14:46:20 UTC