Could we avoid turning it into yet another "Ye Olde Big Pile of (Vaguely Related) Tests"?
I.e there's <image> as defined by CSS [1], and "image formats" and related paraphernalia (GIF, JPEG, EXIF etc.)
So css3/images appears to almost exclusively be things from "CSS Image Values...", while fast/images is the veritable grab bag of stuff (besides "image format" stuff I see crossfade, mask, [generated] content as well as imagemap [<map>,<area>].)
So while the simplest operation might be css3/images/ -> fast/images/ -> images/, maybe a rough "sort" of fast/images/ would be a good first step - and maybe we want to keep "image formats" separate from <image>?
[1] https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images/ (and other specs) which would also include fast/gradients...
There's a patch in process to merge css and fast to just plain images. Then I agree there is much value in creating sub-directories covering various things. That can follow, I think, so I won't close this bug once the first patch lands.
Comment 1 by f...@opera.com
, Nov 11 2016