- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 19:00:22 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> For 'offset-rotation', I think that it's better to align with CSS3 values than maths (i.e. 0deg points north) but I don't feel strongly. The question is a non-sequitur, as offset-rotation does not specify a direction, just a rotation. The only relevant question is whether the rotation is CW or CCW, and the correct answer is CW to match the entire rest of CSS. And I feel *extremely* strongly about this; we used to have linear-gradient() do the "mathy polar angles" thing and specifically switched it to bearing angles. > The path has start point as the center of the containing block We resolved during the call that this was incorrect - the "auto" value for `offset-position` is just the current position of the element. In other words, this is a transform, and by default there's no initial repositioning; `offset-position` can specify one explicitly, tho. So to get the old sort of "polar positioning" you just need to specify `offset-position: center; offset-path: 45deg;`. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/214#issuecomment-227844191 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2016 19:00:24 UTC