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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2016 14:58:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCna-e_V_rVs-pLrmv=G8=gs-qtBn5dz0stFa2z8S5i+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jihye Hong <jh.hong@lge.com>
Cc: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>, Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>, Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Jihye Hong <jh.hong@lge.com> wrote:
> On 5 October 2016 at 11:11, Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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'?
> We also talked about this when it was decided to rename motion-* properties, but no decision has yet been made.

Right. Changing the shortname is the least important part of this
discussion, as it's not web-exposed. ^_^

>>> 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.
> The idea seems reasonable, but there are some properties used without the path - such as offset-anchor, offset-rotation.
> Those are applied to the element itself, not to the path.
> So additional "-path-" prefix for offset-anchor and offset-rotation can cause confusion about their features.

Shane and I agree with this; the "-path" isn't great naming for some
of the properties, and it's just five extra characters for little
benefit even for the ones that it works for.

I'm personally leaning strongly towards just continuing to use
offset-*.  Firefox shipped the logical-offset properties way early
(afaict, before FPWD!) and nobody else has or plans to in the
immediate future, and I haven't seen any fanfare about them; changing
them to a different prefix should be pretty non-problematic.  (Author
interest in the logical-offset properties is, I think, way lower than
the path stuff; they're mostly useful for authoring UA CSS that works
well across languages, but most webpages are single-language, while
the path stuff is solving more pressing problems for authors.)

Received on Thursday, 6 October 2016 21:59:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:15:01 UTC