- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:38:20 -0700
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:17 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:20 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> >> wrote: >> > On Tuesday 2014-04-15 13:43 -0400, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> >> Currently >> >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-images-3/#the-image-orientation is >> >> explicitly specified to not affect background images. However, a >> >> use case was brought up that really wants orientation based on EXIF >> >> metadata for backgrounds: user-provided wallpapers in web apps. >> >> >> >> I'm not saying we should make image-orientation apply to >> >> backgrounds, but we need some mechanism (e.g. via image()?) for >> >> having backgrounds that respect EXIF metadata... >> > >> > I think the way that fits best with other plans is probably adding >> > an argument to the image() function (also in css-images). >> >> I agree. The question is just what to name the value. We can't use >> from-image, as it's too generic. Maybe rotation-from-image? >> auto-rotate? native-orientation? > > > Can't you just make it the default behavior with image()? I think everyone > would want the EXIF data to be honored. That's not clear. People use images with bad exif data all over the place, or else we wouldn't have to have this as a switch; we'd just mandate that browsers respected EXIF. On the other hand, image() is a new space, and we already have some requirements on it designed to make it friendlier to the future. I'm not opposed to requiring EXIF honoring if other people are okay with it. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2014 20:39:07 UTC