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