On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Seth Fowler <s...@mozilla.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 13, 2015, at 11:56 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalm...@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
