Simon Pieters
Simon Pieters
Yeah, same as "intrinsic dimensions" before. Why is it not what we want?
~The width and height in step 1 are the width and height of the image in image pixels.~ Edit: reading the spec again, step 1 applies density correction from EXIF,...
Maybe step 2 in https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#images-processing-model:preferred-density-corrected-dimensions should say "physical dimensions" (new term) instead of "natural dimensions" (or currently, "intrinsic dimensions"), defined as step 2 in https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#preparing-an-image-for-presentation:preferred-density-corrected-dimensions > the width and height...
Added a note and rebased to resolve conflicts.
@annevk thanks, fixed. I found some more "natural dimensions" that should be "density-corrected natural width and height" and fixed them also.
@iamakulov as specified it would apply equally to JS-inserted images as for parser-inserted images. > The idea is: given that browsers already have CSSOM built by the time the image...
Updated OP for implementation interest and filed bugs. This now needs a rebase though.
I've rebased. The build fails because of https://github.com/whatwg/html/pull/8175
PR was merged, closing.