Re: [css3-grid] Notes from the Grid discussion

I think I understand better now. We're keeping the concept of grid areas
and just adding lines as a lower-level concept that gives more control.
That seems fine to me.

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
>  > What do we gain from adding lines instead of keeping it just grid areas?
> > Most of your examples below seem much more confusing to me in the new
> > syntax.
>
> The examples were mostly there just to illustrate the syntax for the
> purpose of this discussion.
>
> The old syntax is directly translatable into the new syntax really
> simply.  Rather than "grid-column-position: 2; grid-column-span: 3;",
> you just say "grid-start: 2; grid-end: offset 3;".


As I look more closely, I think the word "offset" is what makes this hard
for me to read. I guess it's just bikeshedding at this point and nothing
better comes to mind immediately.


> >> Non-Positioned Contents
> >> ====================
> >> For stuff that isn't a grid item (what this means tbd; does it mean that
> >> none of the grid-* properties are set?  Is there an explicit indicator,
> like
> >> display-outside:grid-item;?), flow it all together, wrap it in an
> anonymous
> >> grid item, and position that.
> >
> >
> > I'd prefer that we be consistent with flexbox and force all immediate
> > children of the grid to be grid-items regardless of their display
> property.
> > Obviously, text will need to be wrapped in an anonymous grid items still.
> > This is simpler for browser developers to implement and for authors to
> use.
>
> While this is simpler, it's not great.  It's the "you're doing
> something wrong, so we're just doing minimal damage control to
> compensate" model.  I think this is fine for Flexbox, but for Grid,
> there's value in, for example, just setting a grid on <body>, pulling
> out elements that'll go into cells, and flowing the rest into the
> "body cell".  This was allowed by the older Template spec, and I
> really liked the functionality.
>

I don't see what's the value is.

Also, are you saying that if you have:
<griditem>...</griditem>
foo
<griditem>...<griditem>
bar

that foo and bar will both get wrapped in the same anonymous grid item?
This sounds like a lot of complexity without a use-case.

Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2012 22:58:22 UTC