On Nov 2, 2010, at 4:33 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 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.
Note that in this proposal you're addressing grid lines, not grid cells. So while { grid-position: 'myRow' 'myColumn'; } would be fine, it would be equivalent to:
{ grid-position-top: 'myRow';
grid-position-left: 'myColumn'; }
and the you're presuming the lack of a specification for the opposite edge defines a span to the next grid line.
Which also implies that:
{ grid-position-right: 'myRow';
grid-position-bottom: 'myColumn'; }
is also OK, and the grid cell would be the one to the left and above the named grid lines (which seems useful).
Your equivalence defines a grid cell with 0 width and height (which we could consider an error and the recovery is to make it one cell wide and/or high as needed).
Peter