Re: [motion-1] !important: motion-* rename

On 1 October 2016 at 03:31, Shane Stephens <shans@google.com> wrote:
> Coming back to offset: Amelia says "nor can the net effect be defined as a
> single offset from a base position". But .. it can. The net effect is
> exactly an offset of offset-distance along the offset-path (which is a path
> in the normal CSS+SVG sense of the word path), modified by the
> offset-rotation (which is just a rotation). How the offset and rotation
> applies to the element is controlled by offset-anchor, and the path itself
> is tied back to the global geometry via offset-position.

As the net effect of the properties is not a motion but an offset,
maybe the module itself should get renamed to something like 'Offset
Path Module' or just 'Offset Module'?

> This name actually makes the most sense of anything we've come up with. It
> doesn't step on existing terms (except for 'offset' from Web Animations,
> which admittedly is a shame) and it's really descriptive of what the feature
> does - without modifying layout or the geometry of an element, it offsets
> the position of that element in some well-defined way.

In regard of this, I had another idea. The prefix could be
'offset-path' instead of just 'offset'. Then the properties would be
named like this:

offset-path-shape
offset-path-distance
offset-path-position
offset-path-anchor
offset-path-rotation
offset-path

This resolves the conflicts with Web Animations and Logical Properties
and keeps the meaning of the properties, only their names get a bit
longer.

Sebastian

Received on Wednesday, 5 October 2016 09:12:15 UTC