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

Re: [CSSWG][css-grid-layout] Updated WD of CSS Grid Layout

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:05:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBg=g83eLzyFYg6=m-t4a3fk7+VpWTobcYnLMHFh49sGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@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 Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 6:54 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 don't understand how it allows anything to overlap.  Your syntax
example defined nine areas, and (it appears) used their names as
informal indicators of edges.

Doing this readably means that you need to have areas placed just
right, and given names appropriate to the region, even if nothing is
actually being directly positioned in the area (because it doesn't
actually cover the right cells, due to the lack of overlapping).  This
is the exact problem we came up with during the f2f discussions, where
you'll end up with "dummy" areas used solely to provide names for
region edges, but are otherwise worthless, and which can interfere
with the auto-placement algorithm.

It was this exact type of example that led me to finally convert to
the named lines camp.

> 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.

You specify a segment of lines and tracks, and how many times it
should be repeated.  When positioning, you indicate which repetition
to use.  What do you find confusing?

~TJ
Received on Sunday, 21 April 2013 17:06:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 21 April 2013 17:06:32 UTC