- From: Daniel Holbert via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2023 16:32:59 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Option (2) - Use the content-box always. We wouldn't invoke the grid-placement algorithm to pick up the static-position This seems probably like the best outcome to me, too. Just to clarify, though are you saying that all three grids in [your testcase](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7661#issuecomment-1541037807) should look the same, and should do so regardless of the `grid-row` / `grid-column` properties on the third item? That seems probably reasonable to me. The (maybe acceptable) drawbacks that I see are: (A) If you add `position:absolute` to take a grid item out of flow, then it would now undergo a huge change in its (static) position (moving from its grid cell to a large virtual cell the size of the content area). Part of the goal of the current setup is that it stays in its same grid cell, aligns the same, etc. regardless of whether its abspos or not. Maybe this change would be ~fine since the same thing happens for flexbox? (Though in flexbox there's more positioning influence between siblings, so it's more of an obvious thing there.) (B) For a start-aligned abspos grid item with the grid as its abspos containing block: `top:0` would shift the element further upwards (to the padding box edge). Though maybe this is ~fine since the same thing happens for flexbox. (C) (There's also obviously some compat risk with changing behavior here, since the current behavior is interoperable. Maybe this is edge-casey enough that the impact will be minimal though.) -- GitHub Notification of comment by dholbert Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7661#issuecomment-1561546264 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 24 May 2023 16:33:01 UTC