W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2016

RE: [css-round-display][motion-path] Integrate polar positioning to the motion path spec

From: Jihye Hong <jh.hong@lge.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:36:15 +0900
To: "'Brad Kemper'" <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: "'www-style list'" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00a601d1cabe$0ba73700$22f5a500$@lge.com>
> On Jun 14, 2016, at 6:31 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 13, 2016, at 10:42 PM, Jihye Hong <jh.hong@lge.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Is 'offset-path-anchor' different from 'offset-anchor'?
>> As I understand it, 'offset-path-anchor' sets the initial position of the path and 'offset-anchor' sets the origin of the element which aligns on the path.
>>
> 'offset-path-anchor' sets the initial position and rotation point of the path and 'offset-anchor' sets the point of the element which aligns to the offset-position point. 
> 'Offset-anchor:auto' would make that alignment work the way 'background-position' does. 

You mean you want to rotate the whole path with 'offset-path-anchor'?
If you want to rotate the element, 'offset-anchor' is enough for that.
The point of the element specified by 'offset-anchor' is used to align the element on the path and also could be the rotation point for rotating the element.

But I think 'offset-path-anchor' for setting the initial position of the path is meaningful, because the initial position of the path is static value defined in 'offset-path' specification.

>> I agree with that.
>> But the initial value of 'motion-rotation'[1] in Motion Path is 'auto' and I referred to it.
>> I'm not sure which is better, '0deg' or 'auto'.
>
> 0deg is better. 

I think it would be better to discuss about this on telecon this week.
I would like to know the opinion of editors of Motion Path when they wrote about 'motion-rotation' and its initial value.

= Jihye
Received on Monday, 20 June 2016 06:36:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:47 UTC