W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2014

Re: [css-grid] Auto-placement Stacking Options

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 14:47:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCjioM8LQtE3nTGiL9OrCUEA676FqPKP3ptG2nGN2aOuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "www-archive@w3.org" <www-archive@w3.org>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:19 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> fantasai and Tab wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rossen!
>> Tab and I were working on edits wrt grid-auto-flow: none and had an
>> alternative proposal:
>>   1. Don't add 'none' back. Keep 'grid-auto-flow:rows' as the initial
>>      value.
>>   2. Add, for those use cases, a 'stack' value that stacks items into
>>      the first implicitly-empty slot. Either
>>      a. First slot without explicitly-positioned items into which
>>         the auto-positioned item fits, or
>>      b. First slot without explicitly-positioned items into which
>>         all the auto-positioned items fit
>>   3. To address how that empty slot is found, either
>>      a. Use [rows|columns] instead of 'auto' in 'grid-auto-position'
>>         to define the search direction
>>      b. Allow combining 'stack' with [rows|columns]:
>>         grid-auto-flow: [rows|columns] || stack
>>   4. For compat with Win8, give Win8 apps a default UA stylesheet with
>>         * { grid-auto-flow: -ms-none; }
>>      or
>>         * {  grid-auto-position: 1 / 1; }
>>
>> We feel #2 is better behavior in general, because it doesn't by default
>> overwrite things that are explicitly placed in the grid, and because it
>> makes it easy to  auto-stack items into slots other than 1-1, for layouts
>> that would prefer to stack items into a different grid slot. But if that's
>> not compatible with Win8 apps, the UA rule gives Win8 apps the exact same
>> behavior as before.
>>
>> If you really need to keep 'none' instead of '-ms-none' as the keyword for
>> compat reasons, we could possibly still add a simple "none" value that
>> does *just* put things in 1/1, no questions asked.
>>
>> ~fantasai and TJ
>
>
> Rossen wrote:
>>
>>
>> [Wrt #2] I'd prefer 'deck' in this case. Because in XAML, 'stack' already
>> means, roughly, flexbox, while 'deck' refers to the behavior we're talking
>> about.


Yo, Rossen!  We'd like to close this issue at the f2f.  Which of these
options is MS okay with?

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2014 22:48:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:44:28 UTC