Re: [css-round-display] Add 'auto' to 'polar-anchor' and make it as initial value

On 04/21/2016 11:56 AM, Jihye Hong wrote:
>> On Apr 20, 2016, at 3:19 AM, Brad Kemper < brad.kemper@gmail.com > wrote:
>>> On Apr 19, 2016, at 12:46 AM, Jihye Hong <jh.hong@lge.com> wrote:
>>>
> And yes, I also think that 'auto' is better for the initial value of
> 'polar-anchor'.
>
>>> 'auto' works as:
>>>    - 'auto' becomes 'top left' if an element is positioned in Cartesian
>> coordinates (specifying Top/Right/Bottom/Left).
>>
>> I don't know what you mean. top/right/bottom/left properties position
>> items by their top/right/bottom/left edges, while  'polar-anchor'
>> positions items by their centers (which is why I would change the name
>> from 'polar-anchor' to 'center').
>
> My suggestion was,
> - If any positioning property isn't specified, 'polar-anchor: auto' is the
> same result of 'polar-anchor: left top'.
> - When 'polar-anchor: auto' is specified on an element with 'left', when it
> works as 'polar-anchor: left'.
> - When 'polar-anchor: auto' is specified on an element with 'top', when it
> works as 'polar-anchor: top'.
> - When 'polar-anchor: auto' is specified on an element with 'right', when it
> works as 'polar-anchor: right'.
> - When 'polar-anchor: auto' is specified on an element with 'bottom', when
> it works as 'polar-anchor: bottom'.
> And 'polar-anchor: auto' is specified with 'left' and 'top', when it works
> as 'polar-anchor: left top'.
>
> 'auto' works like this to get the same result as the normal positioning
> method.

I don't think this makes much sense. Any value should give the same result
as normal positioning if 'polar-origin' is 'auto'. Only if it is not 'auto'
should 'polar-anchor' or 'polar-distance' have any effect.

> It was resolved that using 'polar-distance' or 'polar-angle' makes a switch
> of the coordinate system from Cartesian coordinates to polar coordinates at
> CSSWG F2F in Sydney [1].

No, only 'polar-origin' is the switch.

>> I still feel that using 'polar-' prefix and asking people to think about
>> coordinate systems is adding an unnecessary complication. It brings to
>> mind polar map projections and cartography, and geometry, instead of just
>> saying "this property moves an object so that its center aligns with the
>> specified value, as a point within the containing block." Just as the
>> 'left' property means "move (and/or resize) an object so that its left
>> edge aligns with the specified value, as a distance from the left edge of
>> the containing block."
> I also think that 'polar-' prefix for 'polar-origin' and 'polar-anchor'
> isn't appropriate.
> Because they could be used to position elements not just in polar
> coordinates.
>
> I think the namings could be changed like:
>    polar-origin -> origin-position
>    polar-anchor -> anchor-position

I think maybe it makes more sense to turn it the other way around, e.g.
   position-origin
   position-anchor
But for top/left/right/bottom we were thinking of using 'offset' as the
prefix for the logical properties (and hence 'offset' as the shorthand
that sets all of them), so maybe
   offset-origin
   offset-anchor
   offset-angle
   offset-distance
?

~fantasai

Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 13:49:51 UTC