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

Dragging & dropping an image to save locally, a common image UI
interaction. Regardless of `image-orientation` the file saved isn't going
to change, right?

As a developer my intuition would assume that naturalWidth/Height are
constrained to the physical media and not the EXIF meta data. If you want
the naturalWidth/Height to match, export your media by rotating so the
exif.orientation = 1 (no rotation).

Just my 2¢




On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Seth Fowler <seth@mozilla.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
>
> Yup, agreed, that's the best solution.  Let's make it happen. ^_^
>
> > 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.
>
> Agree with all of this.  It's still unclear, though, whether the
> effects of the CSS property should be reflected in the
> naturalWidth/Height properties, which is the subject of this thread.
> If we can get away with just always autorotating, the question is
> moot, which is ideal.
>
> ~TJ
>

Received on Friday, 13 March 2015 21:05:58 UTC