W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2013

[css-grid-layout] feedback from a user perspective

From: Mark <markg85@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 16:43:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPd6JnHtbRswXhhWLK18OnUQVrmnTomPttn7FVxPX4PeS1jzFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>

I've been going over some of the css grid issues and wanted to provide
my feedback from a user perspective.

This issue talks about subgrids with a "display: subgrid" property. I
think that would be confusing. Just stick t display: grid; Even with
subgrids. Then describe it somewhat like this: "If a grid item itself
also has a display: grid; property set then that item is handled as a

This talks about "position: grid". What i can't find in the spec is
what it will do if i have more then one display: grid; in my html
context... Furthermore, i don't think the grid layout should have the
ability to make non grid children part of the grid.

"ISSUE 12"
This talks about the names grid lines. Yes, the syntax in there look
very... odd to say the least. My proposal:
grid-definition-rows: grid-row(NAME, HEIGHT)
  grid-row("row_two", 100px)
  grid-row("row_three", 500px)

The same for columns only with grid-col(...)
This is if you want to keep named grid rows/cols at all. Dropping it
completely wouldn't be bad either :)

"ISSUE 16"
This talks about Line-based Placement. Why don't you guys just drop
those 4 names completely and use/extend the selectors api instead? so
grid-before would become ":before" grid-after would become ":after".
Then you still have "end" and "begin" so perhaps it's best to
introduce 4 new selectors:
It's just an idea, but it seems better then properties because it
"smells" like a selector.

That's it for my feedback on the issues. I can't wait to test out the
new spec in some browser :D

Received on Sunday, 7 April 2013 14:43:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:10 UTC