- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 14:14:40 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 12:56 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > We have multiple implementations of image-resolution, so that should > definitely stay. And I remember writing tests for image-orientation > for HP, so that probably also should stay unless someone can make a > case for that part of the spec being unstable. I'd like to synchronize the syntax of image-resolution with the syntax of the resolution argument in image() (basically, this would involve adding 'snap' to image-resolution and 'from-image' to image()). However, that can be done in Images 4. Everyone else, are you okay with me adding image-resolution and image-orientation back Images 3? Should they be marked as at-risk, or put in plainly? ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2011 21:15:29 UTC