- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 04:33:11 -0700
- To: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 2:44 AM, François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> For elements spanning only one cell, would it be possible to define {
> grid-position: 'myRow' 'myColumn'; } instead of a 4-elements syntax ?
>
> It would be equivalent to {
> grid-position-top: 'myRow';
> grid-position-bottom: 'myRow';
> grid-position-left: 'myColumn';
> grid-position-right: 'myColumn';
> }
Yes, that would be perfectly fine. If one of the gridlines isn't
defined, it should be the immediate next/prev gridline. For example,
saying "grid-position-top: 'myRow'; grid-position-left: 'myColumn';",
and don't define the right or bottom, then the item is only one row
tall and one column wide.
> When you speak about number+name combination, what are you refering to ? Do
> you want to allow something like {
> grid-position: 'myFirstRow' 'myFirstColumn' 2 3;
> } for an element spanning across 2 rows and 3 columns ?
Not quite - in that example, the 2 and 3 would refer to the 2nd and
3rd gridline by number.
Specifying the span explicitly, rather than specifying the bottom, is
also useful, in a similar way to how specifying top+height is
sometimes better than top+bottom in abspos.
> In such case, what about negative (or null) spans ? Are they allowed ? If
> negative spans are allowed, how are they supported ? (do the anchor edge of
> the element in 'firstRow'/'firstColumn' change, for instance ?)
No, spans should be a minimum of 1. If they end up being less than
that, they should probably default to 1.
~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 11:33:59 UTC