Re: [css-grid] Subgrids considered essential

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Eric A. Meyer <eric@meyerweb.com> wrote:

Yes, *in this very limited and specific case*, subgrids can meet the
> criteria.  But as I tried to make clear in the post, this is *a very
> limited and specific case*, meant to illustrate the basic principles at
> play without overcomplicating things, since it was meant for a more general
> audience-- in other words, authors who have little to no exposure to grids
> at this point.
>
> I will try to find the time to produce some more complex examples that
> illustrate why I believe 'display: contents' is not up to nearly the same
> level of sophistication as subgrids.  Hopefully others can also provide
> some examples as well.
>
> As for why I describe it as a "hack", I regard using 'display: contents'
> to take the place subgrids much as I regard using floats to take the place
> of an actual layout system.  Yes, it works; and yes, one can do clever
> things with it; but it's still a hack, as in a workaround for a
> limitation.  I applaud hacks when there's no other alternative.  I deplore
> setting things up such that hacks are necessary.


I continue to disagree on that. display:contents was created to solve
exactly the problem presented in your example (in a generic way that works
with all CSS layout models).

I have no strong opinion on the merits of subgrids and I look forward to
seeing examples where subgrids are the best solution.

Rob
-- 
lbir ye,ea yer.tnietoehr  rdn rdsme,anea lurpr  edna e hnysnenh hhe uresyf
toD
selthor  stor  edna  siewaoeodm  or v sstvr  esBa  kbvted,t
rdsme,aoreseoouoto
o l euetiuruewFa  kbn e hnystoivateweh uresyf tulsa rehr  rdm  or rnea
lurpr
.a war hsrer holsa rodvted,t  nenh hneireseoouot.tniesiewaoeivatewt sstvr
esn