- From: Stephen Hay <haymail@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:20:39 +0200
- To: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>
- Cc: Www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com> wrote: > This also means that strange flex units are not really needed, you > just go with percentages on width, height + min-width / min-height. > Actually, this would make the whole ascii art concept a bit less > useful (since you need to set the [min-/max-]width, [min-/max-]height > on the ::slot()). We could go back to the @template syntax in the 2007 > version of css3-layout. >From a designer's perspective, almost all layout grids (I mean traditional layout grids, not css3-grid) are very explicit, and percentages will be good enough for most flexibility. For those rare instances where they aren't, min/max on the ::slot() shouldn't be a problem. Why was @template changed? > In conclusion, my opinion is go tables, go absolute positioning, go > percentages and go syntax sugar. New layout systems and algorithms are > not that needed, not in the 2009 world of full CSS2 support. Right now there is still no actual grid layout system, as tables are not grids, although they share certain characteristics. Floats are not layout systems (but have been hacked to work as one) and positioning can be used to position things on a grid. It is not, however, a grid. While I see your point, I think we still need one grid layout system. My opinion is that we should take whatever is necessary from flexbox and css3-grid (only the 'gr' unit IMO), add them to template layout, and keep that as a grid layout system. So then: Template layout = grid layout system Positioning = position things on and within the grid Floats = float things within the grid Table layout = for laying out tables :) /Stephen
Received on Sunday, 18 October 2009 19:21:13 UTC