On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Anne van Kesteren <ann...@annevk.nl> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Justin Novosad <ju...@google.com> wrote:
> > But why a new version of drawImage? Couldn't we just modify the existing
> > drawImage definition to state that it takes into account the
> > image-orientation property on the source image?  The default value for
> > image-orientation is 0deg, which corresponds to the current drawImage
> > behavior. So I think we can make that change to the drawImage spec
> without
> > breaking stuff, as long as we make the change while image-orientation is
> > still an experimental feature.
>
> Why is image-orientation in CSS for <img>? For background-image that
> makes sense, but if you are actually affecting the semantics of the
> image that is displayed, it seems like it should be in HTML or a hint
> in the image format.


I was wondering the same thing. From the image-orientation spec: "It
applies only to content images (e.g. replaced elements and generated
content), not decorative images (such as background-image)."
So this property apparently has a considerably larger scope than just
correcting the orientation of images from files, which I guess explains why
it is in CSS.


> (My reply to Boris was going to be that drawImage() should follow
> whatever flag we introduce for <img> to have this behavior, seems
> weird for that flag to be in CSS though.)
>
>
> --
> http://annevankesteren.nl/
>

Reply via email to