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

Re: [css-round-display] part of abs-pos (was: Suggest 'polar-anchor' property for positioning elements without overflowing)

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:21:38 +0900
Cc: Jihye Hong <jh.hong@lge.com>, www-style@w3.org
Message-Id: <6D300C58-A98F-4CF9-AEF5-A544E6086BF3@rivoal.net>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
> 
> On 16 Oct 2015, at 07:51, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brad Kemper
> 
> On Oct 15, 2015, at 12:59 AM, Jihye Hong <jh.hong@lge.com> wrote:
> 
>>> On Oct 9, 2015, at 10:44 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> What I suggested was: don't make 'polar' a separate value of 'position'.
>> Instead, let 
>>> 'polar-angle' and 'polar-distance' combine with positions absolute, fixed,
>> and relative, 
>>> in the same way that left, right, top, and bottom do. The effects of left,
>> right, top, bottom,
>>> polar-angle, and polar-distance would be cumulative, so if you wanted a
>> horizontal or vertical
>>> offset, you would usually use 'top' and 'left' for that.
>> 
>> We also had considered about the method similar to your suggestion. 
>> But, I'm not sure that the coordination system is decided by the
>> polar-related properties not by the position: polar. 
> 
> I'm suggesting it could be. 
> 
>> When using position: polar, we clearly know that the element is positioned
>> based on the center point of the containing block. 
> 
> I guess what I am suggesting is that if the value of 'polar-distance' is anything other than 'auto', then the element is positioned based on the center point of the containing block.

If I am following you correctly, if polar-distance is anything other than auto on an absolutely (or fixed) positioned element, then it is positioned from the center of the containing block. But if it is on a relatively positioned element, then it would be from where the center of the element would have been if statically positioned (or equivalently relatively positioned with top/left/bottom/right left to their initial value).

And on a statically positioned element, it does nothing (just like top/right/bottom/left).

Right?

That makes sense to me with polar-distance as a length, but I seems that percentage polar distances would only makes sense when used with absolutely/fixed positioned element, not with relative, so we'd probably have to make them the same as 0 in that case. Which is probably fine. Or did you mean something else?

> (Alternative proposal: if the value of 'polar-angle' is anything other than 'auto', then the element is positioned based on the center point of the containing block.)

Makes more sense to me with polar-distance than with polar-angle.

> So it is still being determined by a value, but on a different property than what the draft says. 
> 
> Or... introduce 'center' as another property, so that 'center: 50%' would center an element. 

That sounds more confusing, and not obviously more useful.

 - Florian
Received on Friday, 16 October 2015 05:22:10 UTC

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