Re: [css3-grid-layout] Suggestions for terminology amendments

On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 6:29 AM, Mark Boulton <mark@markboulton.co.uk> wrote:
> In reference to: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-grid-layout/#core-concepts-of-the-grid
>
> I'm confused as to the need to invent new terminology with regards to grids that have existed for centuries. I'm also a little concerned that the mental model this terminology builds is one more similar to tables and spreadsheets (where these terms could be interchangeable) than to grids and layout.

Yeah, the terminology from Grid Layout comes directly from table
layouts, which this, for most purposes, *is*, just without all the
shitty parts of actually using <table>s.

> Specifically on the terminology:
>
> - Grid Lines are known as Gutters.

We're killing grid lines, but more importantly, the grid concept of
"gutters" will be added properly, so you can actually have separation
between grid cells.  (Right now, "grid lines" are just an alternate
placement mode - you can place items by their edges rather than by the
cells you want them in.)

> - Grid Cells are known as Modules (or Units – the term is interchangeable). They represent the smallest building block of the grid.

Modules seems potentially confusing with other uses of "module" in
CSS, but "unit" might be all right.  I'd be concerned, though, that
it's too easy to confuse "grid unit" (the spot in the grid) with "grid
item" (the element being placed into the grid).

> - Combinations of modules vertically are Columns *if* they run the full height of the grid.
> - Combinations of modules horizontally are Rows *if* they run the full width of the grid

It seems like these already match the terminology that the spec uses, right?

> - Combinations of modules both vertically and horizontally are Fields.

And it appears that we don't use anything that needs this kind of
term, except for the whole grid itself, right?

~TJ

Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:51:39 UTC