- From: fantasai via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2016 04:59:06 +0000
- To: public-fxtf-archive@w3.org
fantasai has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts: == [motion] Interaction with positioning == Some of the earlier discussions on polar positioning discussed its interaction with regular CSS positioning. Some of the topics that came up were * Do the `left`, `right`, `top`, `bottom` properties have an effect? * Should polar positioning respond to `position: absolute` vs `position: relative` vs `position: static` vs `position: fixed`? The first question was left open, and the second question was concluded as "definitely yes". Under that system, polar positioning was ignored under `static`, used the element's normal position as its origin (and took up space in its container) for `relative`, and took the element out of flow and used the polar origin for `absolute` and `fixed`. The current spec merges this system with the motion transform proposal, and hence operates at a layer on top of CSS positioning. This means the interaction with `position` is handled as simply the differences in determining the "containing block" when laying out the path, with `static` and `relative` reserving space and `absolute` and `fixed` taking it out of flow. The interaction with `left`, `right`, `top`, `bottom` is through them determining the initial position of `offset-position: auto` when `position` is not `static`; they are otherwise ignored. This seems pretty sane, but just wanted to check that everyone is on board with this. It does mean we have two absolute-positioning coordinate systems (`left`, `right`, `top`, `bottom` vs `offset-position: <position>`) that work through two different positioning systems. On a related note, if `left`, `right`, `top`, `bottom` don't actually interact directly with the `offset-` properties, that means we should definitely rename their logical equivalents. https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/issues/51 If we think they should have some interaction (e.g. reducing the size of the containing block, similar to the effect they have when applied to grids or the effect they have on the alignment properties), then they should have matching prefixes. Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/issues/77 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2016 04:59:13 UTC