- From: Phil Cupp <pcupp@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:57:04 +0000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
This is a good idea. I like your first option (grid-position-*) over grid-template-* since you don't need a template to define a grid. I'll put an issue on the grid spec wiki [1] to make a change. [1] http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-grid-layout -----Original Message----- From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 8:16 AM To: www-style@w3.org Subject: [css3-grid-layout] 'grid-row' vs 'grid-rows', 'grid-column' vs. 'grid-columns' [This a series of comments arising from Bert and I attempting to merge the Template and Grid models into a combined Grid Template model so that we can have one layout model going forward. Some issues arise from merging. Others are "we found lots of issues while attempting to merge" comments.] Wrt grid-row and grid-rows grid-column and grid-columns It's very confusing to have two properties that differ only by pluralization. They differ significantly in what they mean. It would be better to have a different naming scheme, such that their names are as distinct as their functions. One option: grid-row -> grid-position-row grid-column -> grid-position-column (grid-position becomes an obvious shorthand of the two.) Another option: grid-rows -> grid-template-rows grid-columns -> grid-template-columns Perhaps with grid-template -> grid-template-slots and 'grid-template' as the shorthand for the three. (See <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Feb/0825.html> wrt shorthand.) ~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 18 February 2012 00:57:38 UTC