- From: Javier Fernandez Garcia-Boente via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 09:12:56 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Hi, On 29/03/18 22:09, fantasai wrote: > We /can/ have |getComputedStyle| use |repeat()| syntax according to > some set of collapsing rules, but we /can't/ make it mirror the > structure of the specified style. Keeping in mind that we are > serializing the /used value/ here, the options here are: > > * Don't use |repeat()| in serialization. Easy, not nice for scaling > up to giant grids. > * Use |repeat()| in serialization to collapse any sequence of > identically-sized columns. Simplest option. > * Use |repeat()| in serialization to collapse any sequence of > identically-sized columns only if they happen to be sourced from > the same specified |repeat()|. NOTE: A specified |repeat()| can be > split into a sequence of multiple serialized |repeat()|s and/or > externally-listed sizes if the repeated track list contains sizes > that are not |<length-percentage>|. E.g. |20px repeat(6, auto)| > can serialize out as |20px repeat(2, 20px) 35px repeat(3, 19px)| > if that is what the track sizes end up as. > * Some other option which is less aggressive than the previous, e.g. > only collapse columns if they're in a |repeat()| that only > contains |<length-percentage>| track listings. > > I think the last option is feasible, form the implementation point of view, and I think it address the main purpose of serializing computed values using the repeat notation. Limiting it to same-equal tracks seems useless to me, I'd rather avoid using repeat notation at all for serialization. The third option seems too much complex to me. -- GitHub Notification of comment by javifernandez Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2427#issuecomment-377484786 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 30 March 2018 09:12:59 UTC