- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:30:55 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On 08/03/2011 02:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > 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? I suggest to mark image-orientation at-risk, but image-resolution we have two implementations of so I don't think it's needed. Or add 'snap' to it and mark 'snap' as at-risk. :) ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2011 21:31:32 UTC