On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 07:39:07 +0100, Philip Jägenstedt phil...@opera.com
wrote:
For video the rotation is applied to videoWidth and videoHeight, at
least
in Chromium/Blink. A video with rotation metadata is thus
indistinguishable
from one where the frame themselves are rotated.
If there's
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Anne van Kesteren ann...@annevk.nl wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Seth Fowler s...@mozilla.com wrote:
I wanted to get the opinion of this list on how image-orientation and the
img element’s naturalWidth and naturalHeight properties should interact.
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
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
Dragging dropping an image to save locally, a common image UI
interaction. Regardless of `image-orientation` the file saved isn't going
to change, right?
As a developer my intuition would assume that naturalWidth/Height are
constrained to the physical media and not the EXIF meta data. If you
For video the rotation is applied to videoWidth and videoHeight, at least
in Chromium/Blink. A video with rotation metadata is thus indistinguishable
from one where the frame themselves are rotated.
If there's any hope that doing the same for img could be Web compatible,
and Safari's behavior
On Monday 2015-03-09 16:52 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
That's a good question. I suspect that .naturalWidth/Height should
return the image's dimensions before applying CSS rotations. This is
likely to be surprising, but also probably the correct answer for
separation-of-concerns reasons.
The more I think about this, the more I agree with David. It really does make
more sense to act like the rotation is part of the image format, because after
all it *is*, at least when from-image is used.
This approach also gives us a smoother path to eventually respecting EXIF
orientation by
On 2015-03-10 09:29, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Seth Fowler s...@mozilla.com wrote:
I wanted to get the opinion of this list on how image-orientation and the img
element’s naturalWidth and naturalHeight properties should interact.
I thought there was some
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Seth Fowler s...@mozilla.com wrote:
I wanted to get the opinion of this list on how image-orientation and the
img element’s naturalWidth and naturalHeight properties should interact.
I thought there was some agreement that image-orientation ought to be
a
On 3/9/15, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Seth Fowler s...@mozilla.com wrote:
On 3/9/15, Seth Fowler s...@mozilla.com wrote:
Hi all!
I wanted to get the opinion of this list on how image-orientation and the
img element's naturalWidth and
On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:06 PM, Garrett Smith dhtmlkitc...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3/9/15, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a good question. I suspect that .naturalWidth/Height should
return the image's dimensions before applying CSS rotations.
I think that that is not what
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Seth Fowler s...@mozilla.com wrote:
Hi all!
I wanted to get the opinion of this list on how image-orientation and the
img element’s naturalWidth and naturalHeight properties should interact.
The css-images level 3 spec says:
The intrinsic height and width
Hi all!
I wanted to get the opinion of this list on how image-orientation and the img
element’s naturalWidth and naturalHeight properties should interact. The
css-images level 3 spec says:
The intrinsic height and width are derived from the rotated rather than the
original image dimensions.”
14 matches
Mail list logo
