W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2015

Re: [css-round-display] Positioning elements with polar positioning and absolute positioning

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 08:56:14 -0800
Cc: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <55D4AEBA-F0E1-487B-BED4-83D42C340514@gmail.com>
To: Jihye Hong <jh.hong@lge.com>



Your last proposal is actually quite close to what I was proposing. 

> On Dec 22, 2015, at 10:02 PM, Jihye Hong <jh.hong@lge.com> wrote:
> 
> On the other hand, 'center' seems to be no different from the 'polar-origin'
> to me. 

Which is why it will be abused for uses which have nothing to do with polar movement. What I'm saying is that sort of positioning by the center of the positioned element is more generally useful. 

(I might have said polar-anchor before, when I meant polar-origin.  I keep getting the names mixed up. )

> Using 'polar-origin' is enough for finding the origin of the polar movement.

So, if I didn't need to move something at an angle, but instead just wanted the center to align with a point 75% of the way across the containing block, you are saying I would do this:

Position:absolute;
Polar-distance:0;
Polar-origin: 75% 50%;

Instead of this:

Position:absolute;
center: 75% 50%;


If we want 'center' to only work if the other edge position values (t, r, b, l) are 'auto', then that was one of my alternative proposals anyway (the last one). That would mean that my proposal is ALMOST exactly the same as yours, except:

1. 'Polar-origin' is named 'center' instead. 

2. 'polar-*' is not required at all in order to use 'center'. 

3. 'Center' is a shorthand for '<center-x> <center-y>'. 

4. 'center-x' or 'center-y' could be 'auto' without both of them being 'auto'. 
Received on Wednesday, 23 December 2015 16:56:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:59 UTC