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

On Jun 19, 2016, at 11:36 PM, Jihye Hong <jh.hong@lge.com> wrote:

>> 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'?

No, not at all. 

> If you want to rotate the element, 'offset-anchor' is enough for that.

Not if it is doing double duty as an alignment point for offset-position/origin already. 

> 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.

The path has no position. The element has a starting position, which the path should align to somehow, and then the element should be moved some distance along that path. 

If you are suggesting that the starting position (as set by offset-position/origin, or 'top' et al, or by its initial static position) should be ignored, and the element should just jump to the beginning of a path that is somehow aligned to the containing block, then I definitely do not agree with that. The path should be aligned to the element, not the other way around. Otherwise the other positioning properties (even static) all become meaningless. 

> 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 17:31:59 UTC