5 ms·

>I’ve found the results strange in Safari and Chrome, since there’s this CSS property for <img />, image-orientation, and with it one can say to use the EXIF de

>I’ve found the results strange in Safari and Chrome, since there’s this CSS property for <img />, image-orientation, and with it one can say to use the EXIF declared on the photo metadata to fix the orientation. The default value is 0deg. If you want show the image with the correct orientation, the value must be from-image. I went to the linked specification (https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-images/#image-orientation https://www.w3.org/TR/css3-images/#image-orientation) and "from-image" is not specified here as a possible value of "image-orientation".

jwilk 8y ago
It was in CSS 4 at some point: https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-css4-images-20120911/#the-image-orientation https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-css4-images-20120911/#the-imag...
garaetjjte 8y ago
It seems that Firefox from-image is nonstandard (from-image in specification is only defined for image-resolution). And default behavior of ignoring EXIF rotation seems correct according to this weird specification: >Note that some devices will "tag" an image with some metadata indicating its correct orientation, so image viewing software can do the necessary transformation themselves. Due to legacy compatibility restraints, Web browsers are required to ignore this data by default. A future level of this specification is expected to have a value that applies the metadata-specified transformation automatically. IMO EXIF rotation should be applied always, and any CSS rotations should combine with it, not override.
- leni536 8y ago
  > IMO EXIF rotation should be applied always, and any CSS rotations should combine with it, not override. I agree. EXIF rotation is a part of the image and it's just an implementation detail of the image data. Browsers shouldn't leak this.
  - michaelt 8y ago
    Presumably the issue is "Given that browsers that ignore EXIF rotation already exist, should modern browsers display the same page differently?"
    - anonymfus 8y ago
      Yes because it will fix more pages than it will break.
      - praveenscience 8y ago
        But what about the compatibility, graceful degradation, etc. of the browsers that yet don't support this feature? Won't that break everything else?
IshKebab 8y ago
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#propdef-image-orientation https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#propdef-image-orienta... But it has been dropped from the next version which states: > If the image has an orientation specified in its metadata, such as EXIF, the UA must rotate or flip the image to correctly orient it as the metadata specifies.
- KwanEsq 8y ago
  That statement appears to only apply to images created with the CSS image() function, not HTML <img>s.

jwilk 8y ago

It was in CSS 4 at some point: https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-css4-images-20120911/#the-image-orientation https://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-css4-images-20120911/#the-imag...

garaetjjte 8y ago

It seems that Firefox from-image is nonstandard (from-image in specification is only defined for image-resolution). And default behavior of ignoring EXIF rotation seems correct according to this weird specification: >Note that some devices will "tag" an image with some metadata indicating its correct orientation, so image viewing software can do the necessary transformation themselves. Due to legacy compatibility restraints, Web browsers are required to ignore this data by default. A future level of this specification is expected to have a value that applies the metadata-specified transformation automatically. IMO EXIF rotation should be applied always, and any CSS rotations should combine with it, not override.

leni536 8y ago
> IMO EXIF rotation should be applied always, and any CSS rotations should combine with it, not override. I agree. EXIF rotation is a part of the image and it's just an implementation detail of the image data. Browsers shouldn't leak this.
- michaelt 8y ago
  Presumably the issue is "Given that browsers that ignore EXIF rotation already exist, should modern browsers display the same page differently?"
  - anonymfus 8y ago
    Yes because it will fix more pages than it will break.
    - praveenscience 8y ago
      But what about the compatibility, graceful degradation, etc. of the browsers that yet don't support this feature? Won't that break everything else?

IshKebab 8y ago

https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#propdef-image-orientation https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#propdef-image-orienta... But it has been dropped from the next version which states: > If the image has an orientation specified in its metadata, such as EXIF, the UA must rotate or flip the image to correctly orient it as the metadata specifies.

KwanEsq 8y ago
That statement appears to only apply to images created with the CSS image() function, not HTML <img>s.