RE: a new proposal for grid layout, derived from MSFT's

Hi Daniel,

Definitely it would be great to have you as an editor and contributing to the spec.  There are few bugs in the current draft that need fixed that impact its readability... we can list you as an editor when those updates are made (soon).

Couple of comments on named lines...  I'm wondering if its more natural to name the regions rather than the lines?  Are there scenarios where named lines stand out as the clear winner over named regions?  Do you feel like there is room for both or would the named lines + the grid-position property be a replacement for naming a rectangular region of the grid using something like the grid-template property that Tab proposed?

Some other minor nits:

1. Seems like there should be an implicit start line instead of needing to define a 0px offset for a named one.
2. One of my co-workers, Erik who is CC'd, suggested that you could benefit from multiple names on a single line to avoid coupling together adjacent grid items (because they would share a grid line of the same name making it impossible to split them apart without updating at least one of the items).  He'll reply with more of his thoughts.


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Alex Mogilevsky
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 2:38 PM
To: Daniel Glazman
Cc:; Markus Mielke
Subject: RE: a new proposal for grid layout, derived from MSFT's

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Glazman 
> []
> Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 9:42 AM
> 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 don't think we are ready to drop the indices, there are many cases where requiring named lines makes it more complicated, dynamic cases in particular. Or think about a GUI editor where the user creates and drags grid lines....

> On another note, what about adding me as an editor of the document? 
> I'm willing to contribute.

Certainly, it would be great to work together with you on this. Looking forward to it!


Received on Thursday, 18 November 2010 10:58:27 UTC