Re: [css-grid] Doubts on worthiness of grid-auto-flow:stack

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just slightly reworked the auto-placement algorithm to define the
> behaviors of the three placement algorithms separately, and I've come
> to the conclusion that "stack" is a lot of difficulty for no benefit.
>
> We originally created "stack" as an attempt to define a slightly
> better version of the old "just put everything in 1/1" behavior.
> Instead, it goes and finds the first *empty* slot, and puts everything
> there; if you're not putting anything in 1/1, it'll have the same
> behavior.  It's a little more complex than that to handle things with
> a definite column position, though.
>
> Having freshly written the algo, I just don't think it pulls its
> weight.  It's still a terrible value, doing something you don't
> actually want it to do.  It only exists to hopefully handle IE's
> legacy content that depended on "auto-placing" things in 1/1, but it
> might not even do that (if a page is currently positioning something
> in 1/1 *and* depending on auto-placement to put more things there).  I
> think we should just throw away "stack", add "none" with the behavior
> that puts everything in 1/1 if its position is fully auto (and does a
> simple "dense" packing for things that are auto in only one
> dimension).  This would then prevent IE from having to make a
> proprietary value for their old behavior, as we'd just match it.

Ping other WG members?  I'm thinking we should just drop this
entirely; stack is a dumb value, and so is the simplified "none"
value.  If MS still needs a "none" behavior (that stacks everything at
1/1) for their earlier app implementation, they should feel free to
implement it as -ms-none and make it the UA default in that
environment.  There's no need for it in a real web-page, as the
stacking behavior isn't useful.  (And when you do want to stack
things, you're gonna want to explicitly position them, so they dont'
end up somewhere unpredictable.)

~TJ

Received on Thursday, 18 December 2014 21:59:08 UTC