W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fxtf-archive@w3.org > December 2016

Re: [fxtf-drafts] [motion] Should omitted <size> just extend to the containing block edge?

From: Jihye Hong via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 08:17:43 +0000
To: public-fxtf-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-268462882-1482308262-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> someone might want to position along a polar ray between the initial
 point and the edge of the containing block at a non-orthogonal angle.

Previously, Motion Path Spec described that the end point of the path 
is the point where the ray with < angle > meets the edge of the 
containing block.
But this caused the inconsistency in `offset-path` when the < angle > 
is different but the percentage value of `offset-distance` is the 
same. 
So I thought the default value as `closet-side` can solve the 
inconsistency, it makes the calculated position of the element 
constant with the changes in < angle > of the path.

Specifying `furthest-corner` for < size > can position the element 
along a polar ray between the initial point and the edge of the 
containing block at a non-orthogonal angle.

It's hard for me to find the better option than `closet-side` for the 
default of < size >.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by jihyerish
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/issues/73#issuecomment-268462882 
using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2016 08:17:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 20 November 2018 00:45:56 UTC