W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2014

Re: [css-grid] Span & faulty line names

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 12:14:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAKqPkmPC1cVXh6K_gre2BVr12yBqMZ5tj9YfQUdW2FRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fran├žois REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Cc: CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 2:32 AM, Fran├žois REMY
<francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:
>> You forget that this isn't true in all cases. Because of the "last if not
>> enough lines" rule, you may already end up with less than 3 cells covered
>> (the intention is to stay in the explicit grid, and removing the name
>> constraints does allow to break that assumption).
>
> I was off a few days, but I would still like to reformulate another proposal
> here now I understand your reasoning better.
>
> What if instead we specified that "span 3 invalid-name" spans to :
> - the minimum of
> -- a span of 3 lines (with no name constraint)
> -- the last line of the explicit grid
>
> With this algorithm, we try to preserve as much as possible the two
> assumptions of this kind of span:
> -- at least three lines will be spanned
> -- the span will not cross the explicit grid boundaries
>
> While this is open for debate, I would propose to apply this rule in two
> cases:
> - no line is named "invalid-name" at all.
> - no line is named "invalid-name" after the line from which the span is
> computed.
> (currently, the second one reverts to a span of 1 after error correction)
>
> Thoughts?

So, fantasai and I discussed your proposal and reviewed the
error-handling rules again, and we think we've got a simpler proposal:
assume that all lines outside the explicit grid have all possible
names.

This lets us be consistent in all the error-handling cases where there
aren't enough lines of a given name, which makes the whole thing
easier to understand.  It's also more noticeably wrong, which is an
acceptable outcome here - if the author fat-fingers a line name, the
item will get positioned somewhere obviously weird, and they'll be
able to correct it.

We've gone ahead and committed this change to the draft.  Thoughts?

~TJ and fantasai
Received on Monday, 7 July 2014 19:14:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 7 July 2014 19:14:58 UTC