On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Julien Chaffraix <julien.chaffraix@gmail.com> wrote: > I am extremely concerned about the change that was made to the > specification to have grid-end (resp. grid-after) be resolved against > the grid element's end edge (resp. grid element's after edge) in the > <integer> case. > > It is this confusing for people (grid-row: 1 / 1 is a grid item > spanning the whole grid) and it took me a while to understand why the > example 15 is correct [1]. This issue was already mentioned during > some previous meeting's minutes [2]. We've already got an issue for this in the draft. I agree, I think I'd prefer that integers always count from the before/start side. > Mostly it opens us to a slew of complexity for the auto-placement > algorithm as we would need to re-resolve our grid positions if the > grid grows (which removes the current algorithm's guaranteed linear > time). The other alternative is to ignore the author's intent and > don't recompute which is equally bad. If we do change to always counting from before/start, we then want to allow negative indexes to indicate counting from the after/end side. We really can't avoid this - it's necessary for lots of things (such as, for example, having an area span the entire grid). So, this complexity is unavoidable. ~TJReceived on Friday, 8 March 2013 23:25:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:27 UTC