Repository navigation
[css-images] compute/round the <angle> value for image-orientation property is not consistent #1206
Description
Quote from the spec:
The computed value of the property is calculated by rounding the specified angle to the nearest quarter-turn (90deg, 100grad, .25turn, etc.), rounding away from 0 (that is, 45deg is rounded to 90deg, while -45deg is rounded to -90deg), then moduloing the value by 1 turn (360deg, 400grad, etc.).
As to the rounding away from 0, the example says that -45deg is rounded to -90deg. What about 315deg (the equivalence of -45deg)? Should we round it to 360deg (equivalence of 0deg) to align the rounding away from 0 stuff? This is a bit confusing to me.
If we intent to always make -45deg (and 315deg) always round to -90deg, then IMO this worth some more words in the spec. Since there are only four possible rounding edges (45deg, 135deg, 225deg, 315deg), maybe we could also specify all of them in the spec. instead of just putting 2 examples.
Activity
LeaVerou commentedon Apr 12, 2017
-45degshould definitely round to the same angle as315deg, so this looks like a bug.[-][css-images] compute/round the <angle> value for image-orientation property is a bit confusing[/-][+][css-images] compute/round the <angle> value for image-orientation property is not consistent[/+]tabatkins commentedon Apr 12, 2017
Yeah, it's a bug. There's no greater reasoning behind which way to round; I just needed an unambiguous answer. We can just swap the order of the round/mod to be mod/round instead, that'll take care of things.
LeaVerou commentedon Apr 12, 2017
Heh, I was about to post the exact same thing, then I realized it wouldn't work. 315deg mod 1turn is still 315deg...
tabatkins commentedon Apr 12, 2017
done in ebdeb61
tabatkins commentedon Apr 12, 2017
? It definitely works. It changes -45deg to round to 0deg (same as 315deg does), tho.
LeaVerou commentedon Apr 12, 2017
Let me know if I'm missing something here:
-45 mod 360 is still -45, which rounds to -90 (due to the "rounding away from 0" clause).
315 mod 360 is still 315, which rounds to 360 = 0 (due to the same "rounding away from 0" clause).
tabatkins commentedon Apr 12, 2017
No, that's using the bizarro broken version of modulus popularized by C. I made it clear in the spec text that we're using the correct version of modulus, which restricts it to the half-open range [0deg, 360deg).