Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-grid][cssom] Disallow repeat() syntax in grid-template-rows/columns resolved values

The Working Group just discussed `Disallow repeat() syntax in grid-template-rows/columns resolved values`, and agreed to the following resolutions:

* `RESOLVED: serialization of the repeat() MUST use the repeat syntax`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;dael> Topic: Disallow repeat() syntax in grid-template-rows/columns resolved values<br>
&lt;dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2427<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Summary: there was a question about hey we are seeing a couple of ways repeat() is being serialized, why can't we have one?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Edge supports serialization of repeat() by using repeat syntax and computed values inside.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: FF, Webkit, and Chrome serialize as a list of computed values.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Question from TabAtkins and fantasai was just tell us which you want, we don't care.<br>
&lt;leaverou_> What if the number to repeat by is a var()?<br>
&lt;Rossen_> https://wptest.center/#/nsrrq1<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Seems Igalia is pushing for simpliest which is not use repeat() syntax and they asked MS to voice our thoughts. My position is having repeat() serialize as a list is more difficult for editors and script to handle. Test case inside the issue  serialization is okay, but if the repeat >2 in chome if you use 5000 you get 100 columns and it drops. FF is between<br>
&lt;fantasai> leaverou_, it's the used value that gets returned by gCS<br>
&lt;leaverou_> Oh right<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Having to parse this many is harder. Finally, this isn't new. grandant-repeat() has the same challenge but we're not serializing a list.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Our opinion is preserve the repeat syntax and have others catch up.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Looking for other opinions.<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: What if author has spec columns that could be collapse?<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: If the author has literally specified multiple coluns without using repeat syntax but they could be collapsed using repeat would you serialize that using repleat?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Not really. That's like saying if we have width 10px why not serialize as calc(10px). I don't believe shorter is the goal here.<br>
&lt;dael> AmeliaBR: Just so long as there's a clear definition. You agrue keep as spec by author<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Right. Roundtrip of repeat serializes as repeat, not a bunch of values.<br>
&lt;Rossen_> grid-template-columns: repeat(2000, 100px);<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: In the test case from Igalia you have the repeat syntax that looks okay, but if you try this ^ the serialization is crazy.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Any other opinions?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: If not, can we resolve?<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Objections to keeping repeat syntax as is currently in the spec and open bugs for other impl to do that?<br>
&lt;dael> frremy: Spec is a may. So there is no implementation bug to file unless it's a must.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: A ha. good point frremy. I didn't realize this was a may.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: Objections to specifying the repeat() syntax serialization as a must?<br>
&lt;AmeliaBR> +1 to interop!<br>
&lt;dael> TabAtkins: Yes, we should spec one way or the other as a must.<br>
&lt;dael> Rossen_: I'm not hearing objections.<br>
&lt;dael> RESOLVED: serialization of the repeat() MUST use the repeat syntax<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2427#issuecomment-376947035 using your GitHub account

Received on Wednesday, 28 March 2018 16:20:10 UTC