- From: Rachel Andrew via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2023 07:12:49 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@fantasai I've been discussing this with @chrishtr and @bfgeek and I wanted to bring that back to this PR. TL:DR is that we are wondering if we only need `reading-order:auto` (on the children) and if there are reasons to do `reading-order: <integer>` at all, or initially. Do compelling enough use cases exist to have that level of control or do people really just want to follow the layout? We also wonder what will happen with row and column reversing in flexbox as people may expect different behavior there. Longer notes below: My original suggestion was a switch on the grid/flex container. In that scenario all of the following would follow the grid or flex modified order: - flex layout with order - flex layout with *-reverse - grid layout doing placement with lines/template areas - grid layout with order - "randomized grid layouts" with dense packing or masonry In the existing edits plus this PR, the `reading-order: auto` value is applied to the children, and only covers: - "randomized grid layouts" with dense packing (and I'm assuming masonry) To do the following you would need `reading-order: <integer>` on the children: - flex layout with order - flex layout with *-reverse - grid layout doing placement with lines/template areas - grid layout with order There are definitely use cases for people wanting to follow the layout created by placement (usually because they want different layouts at different responsive breakpoints), so if we only do auto as specced, we don't have a method to achieve those use cases, and if we go for the switch on the container that likely stops us doing this version later. An alternative, however, would be if the only value for `reading-order` was `auto` (applied to the children) and `auto` applied in all layout types, not just the randomized ones. As that shouldn't roadblock us from adding the integer value in the future. Reading order and layout order being separated, is a use case. For example, [this](https://twitter.com/hovhaDovah/status/1531681075562520579?s=20&t=IW1Qq-7k-daMcKb4LkYU6Q), but I think in that case, if we went with auto applied everywhere that doesn't need to affect layout-order with no reading-order. I feel that having the property on the children is better than my idea of a switch on the parent (though I guess we could then add a switch on the parent that sets them all as a group, as with align-items), because it allows for more flexibility, but I think we could get away with that initially being auto only. -- GitHub Notification of comment by rachelandrew Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/8257#issuecomment-1416683499 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Saturday, 4 February 2023 07:12:51 UTC