- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 10:54:02 -0800
- To: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Markus Mielke <mmielke@microsoft.com>
On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 9:42 AM, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > Le 17/11/10 18:29, Alex Mogilevsky a écrit : >> >> I love this idea. It is a very simple addition, and it makes a lot of >> common scenarios much more manageable. >> >> I think for named lines to really integrate well, line names should be >> interchangeable with line indices. 'grid-position' property as proposed here >> does that. But 'grid-column-span'/'grid-row-span' wouldn't readily take a >> name. It can be fixed by having separate properties for start/end grid lines >> (like 'grid-column-start'/'grid-column-end'... or even >> 'grid-x-start'/'grid-x-end' ?) > > I have the feeling that indices should be dropped in > favor of named lines. I don't really like the idea > of spanning in a grid layout. A grid should define > position of blocks and spanning is really a concept > that belongs to tables and should not be there. I disagree. Numbered indexes are useful in the case of dynamic grid additions. It's clumsy to have to make up unique names every time you want to dynamically add a row or column. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 17 November 2010 18:54:54 UTC