- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 06:54:27 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Julien Chaffraix <jchaffraix@google.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@google.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Apr 20, 2013, at 8:46 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Apr 19, 2013, at 6:03 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>> We had discussions two f2fs ago about relying solely on named areas to >>> provide names. It's not usable. (I tried.) >> >> It seems to have changed a lot since then, though, and I'm not sure the current melange of named grid areas and named grid lines is better. As I dig into the current version more, I'm finding it pretty confusing. > > It hasn't changed in any way relevant to the discussion; we've just > rearranged some syntax. The underlying issue is still there - lines > are tied to a more generic concept of "regions", which can overlap and > nest, unlike grid areas. The proposed syntax I suggested would allow grid regions to overlap, by aligning to the edges of the specified regions. You still haven't said why that wouldn't work, or why you'd need named or numbered lines instead of implied edges of named or numbered grid areas. I'm not sure what you mean by nesting requiring an explicit reference to grid lines, and why an implicit reference to a grid area's edge wouldn't suffice. > They can also repeat, which isn't compatible > with grid areas. I haven't included any comments yet about how baffling the syntax is for repeating.
Received on Sunday, 21 April 2013 13:54:57 UTC