W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: [css3-grid-layout] [css3-layout] default layout of children

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 21:22:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CALRQH78D+ham3yf+dP-xpMkmUOiS-7q-Rx9sWDjBMWd6CwSiWA@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:35 PM, fantasai
<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 02/24/2012 01:50 AM, Phil Cupp wrote:
>> I'm just saying that items that have the same Grid position overlap by
>> design - it's not a problem to be solved. †However, I'm fine with defining
>> better ways to resolve those positions automatically with the auto placement
>> algorithm. †We can also consider making the auto placement algorithm on by
>> default so that authors donít experience "data loss" after setting display
>> to grid.
> I think I'd prefer that. :) It also means that this:
> †display: grid;
> †grid-columns: (1fr)[3];
> automatically arranges all the children into a grid. Which makes a lot of
> sense to me.
> I'm a little concerned in tying the completion of grid to the adoption of
> auto placement, though, especially since you've noted you're not 100% happy
> with it yet. Perhaps the default "on" behavior could be simplified to just
> put things in new rows, one item per grid slot, rather than trying to find
> holes in the existing grid? A more sophisticated algorithm that looks for
> holes could be switched on explicitly with 'grid-auto-flow' later. I think
> that would be easier for authors to understand as well: the placement of
> un-positioned items is more predictable that way.

Just for the note:

I have flow:row() feature here:

For example when I define template for the row as:

dl { flow:row(dt,dd); }

dt and dd elements in a <dl> list will be replaced in
two columns grid - dt in first column, dd in second.

All elements inside the container that do not
satisfy the template will take separate rows
spanning all columns. That is simple and
reliable I think.

Andrew Fedoniouk.

Received on Sunday, 26 February 2012 05:22:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:12 UTC