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

Re: [css-round-display] Suggest 'polar-anchor' property for positioning elements without overflowing

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:21:15 +0000
To: Jihye Hong <jh.hong@lge.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0AEEBF75-FD4F-42AA-BC8E-F918216516D5@adobe.com>
On 10/13/15, 4:42 AM, "Jihye Hong" <jh.hong@lge.com> wrote:

>If 'polar-anchor: auto' would work like method2, 'auto' value has the
>following meanings:
>	i) the objects are positioned as even around the edge of the circle
>shape of the containing block
>	ii) the objects are positioned without overflowing within the circle
>shape of the containing block
>
>Is this definition of 'auto' value appropriate?

I think that captures the intent I have in mind - don’t change how the item is aligned to its polar-angle, but adjust the polar-distance to avoid overflow.

>
>It seems like the meaning of 'auto' value is complicated, while definitions
>of 'auto' in 'background-position' or 'motion-direction' look intrinsic and
>simple.

I agree, but that may be unavoidable as polar positioning is a bit more complicated than positioning within a rectangle.

>
>Also I'm not sure that 'auto' value is needed for 'polar-anchor'.
>Do you think 'auto' is necessary for 'polar-anchor'?

My understanding is that polar-anchor was originally proposed as a solution to the problem of overflow. I’m not aware of a use case any other value of polar-anchor than ‘auto’. So if polar-anchor exists I do think the ‘auto’ value is necessary. But there might be other solutions for avoiding overflow, such as adding a keyword to polar-distance:

Will overflow:
  polar-distance: 100%;
 
Will use method 2:
  polar-distance: 100% no-overflow;


Thanks,

Alan
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2015 14:21:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:57 UTC