RE: [css3-grid-layout] semantic zoom in grid's templates

>From: François REMY [mailto:fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr] 
>My reasoning is simple: the first representation (the "fraction bar" one) is easily readable, while the second one ("multiline template") is impossible to understand, and very complex to type.

[pcupp] I think there are a lot of strong opinions about template syntax.  Here my view is opposite your own.  I think one can see the shape of the grid in the multi-line example and not the alternative you proposed.

>Also, the "multiple lines" string template is unstable.

[pcupp] I agree a weakness of the template syntax is maintenance of the template definition.  You trade the pain of making ascii art for a visual representation of the grid.  Authors that currently take the time to create and maintain ascii art in the comments of their code will likely enjoy a new ability to have their art actually be the layout definition.  Authors that choose not to spend time on such things don't need a template syntax at all.  Just define row and column definitions and (optionally) use named lines.

>>From: Phil Cupp
>>> From: François REMY [mailto:fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr]
>>> grid-template:
>>> “ab(x/y)(rs/t/u)”;
>>>
>>>instead of
>>> grid-template:
>>>“abxrs”
>>>“abxrs”
>>>“abxtt”
>>>“abytt”
>>>“abyuu”
>>>“abyuu”;
>>
>>[pcupp] What's the goal of the sub-cell(do you mean sub-column)/row syntax? 
>>In general the grid-template property can only express a subset of the layouts that are possible with the grid, so I see its utility purely as a means to visualize the grid you are trying to create.  I have a tough time seeing how the two template definitions above are equivalent, so IMO it fails the "easy to visualize test".

Received on Friday, 24 February 2012 22:30:27 UTC