Re: Proposition. Positioning content with guidelines

On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Alexander Shpack <shadowkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [pcupp] Unification of all layout types into one is not a goal for the grid.  If that's the goal of the new layout your proposing that's fine, but just to be clear it isn't feedback that I can act on.
>
> Because it goal for the guidelines.

In my opinion, this is a fool's errand.  I don't think it's possible
to come up with a single layout model that solves all of the major
use-cases that the separate models we currently have can do.  I
believe the complexity of having several layout models is a worthy
cost for the benefit of making it simple and easy to solve problems
once you decide with model to use.


>>>Every author's solution, IMO, should as simple as possible. I don't want to create dozens of media queries, megabytes of CSS for every specific case, browser should rearrange the content automatically.
>>>This is dreams of many coders. Grid layout is not better than floats or tables (display: table-cell), this is different view of one thing.
>>
>> [pcupp] The grid isn't better or worse, but it is substantially different than both floats and tables.  It addresses a different set of scenarios like dividing up the space in a viewport or building a control out of HTML primitives.  I like to compare the grid to absolute positioning, except instead of using lengths to specify the position of the item, you express the position using grid lines; the location of which can be determined by sizing functions that space the grid lines based on a length, the contents between two lines, or remaining space in the grid.
>
> I think, Tables + Flexes + Regions may completely substitute Grid layout

I strongly disagree.  I don't think it's possible to replicate some of
the common use-cases, even with complex combinations of those three.
Many simple cases can be replicated with them, but it'll be more
complex than doing it with Grid.

~TJ

Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 22:27:24 UTC