- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 12:02:47 +0200
- To: Hyojin Song <hyojin22.song@lge.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Kingston <jonathan@jooped.com>, www-style@w3.org
On 04 Jun 2015, at 09:07, Hyojin Song <hyojin22.song@lge.com> wrote: > On Thu, June 4, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Jonathan Kingston <jonathan@jooped.com> > Wrote: >> >> - The Example 6 code is likely the wrong way around: >> >> <div id="circle1" style="polar-angle: 0deg; polar-distance: 20%"></div> <div >> id="circle2" style="polar-angle: 90deg; polar-distance: 50%"></div> >> >> Polar distance should be swapped to be: >> >> <div id="circle1" style="polar-angle: 0deg; polar-distance: 50%"></div> < >> div id="circle2" style="polar-angle: 90deg; polar-distance: 20%"></div> >> >> To match the image provided. > > I think it depends on where is the major axis, and it is normally the right direction as the 0 degree. > You can find the background materials in the wiki page as follows. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_coordinate_system > If I miss something, let me know through this mailing list. The convention in math is as you say, but other uses of <angle> in css have positive values go clockwise, and with 0 at the top. There aren't that many uses yet, but I think it would be good to be consistent. Either way, the specification needs to be explicit about how angles should be interpreted. >> This was copied from the original thread at the request of Florian: >> http://discourse.specifiction.org/t/css-round-display/790/3 > > Thanks Florian :) My pleasure :) - Florian
Received on Thursday, 4 June 2015 10:03:09 UTC