W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > March 2015

Re: [whatwg] Effect of image-orientation on naturalWidth/Height

From: Seth Fowler <seth@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:21:08 -0700
Message-Id: <62193A80-FDE3-44A3-92EE-DAFE83407FF3@mozilla.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>

> On Mar 13, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> If it happens at the markup level, it should *definitely* affect the
> naturalWidth/Height properties.  I don't think that's in question at
> all.  But nobody's moved on the markup issue, so I haven't removed the
> CSS property yet. ^_^

Not to rehash comments that I and others have already made in bug 25508, but I think specifying whether we honor EXIF orientation on a per-image basis is not really very interesting.

By far the most desirable outcome, if it’s sufficiently web-compatible, is to just respect EXIF orientation by default.

If we can’t do that, then I think content authors will mostly just opt in via a single “img { image-orientation: from-image }” in their CSS. That’s the simplest opt in solution that’s feasible. It’s also trivial to encapsulate in a standard CSS library.

I’m opposed to the removal of the CSS property for a markup-based solution, as that will force content authors to specify “autorotate” on every single <img> element on the page. That’s a waste of effort and bandwidth (though admittedly compression will make the impact there minimal), and it makes it more likely that content authors will simply forget to do so on some elements. Encapsulating this solution is also significantly more heavyweight.

Having a DOM-based way to request that EXIF orientation be respected is desirable, though, so that it can be used with non-HTML uses of images like canvas.

- Seth
Received on Friday, 13 March 2015 19:21:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:29 UTC