- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 12:14:09 -0700
- To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Cc: CSS WG <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 4, 2014 at 2:32 AM, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: >> You forget that this isn't true in all cases. Because of the "last if not >> enough lines" rule, you may already end up with less than 3 cells covered >> (the intention is to stay in the explicit grid, and removing the name >> constraints does allow to break that assumption). > > I was off a few days, but I would still like to reformulate another proposal > here now I understand your reasoning better. > > What if instead we specified that "span 3 invalid-name" spans to : > - the minimum of > -- a span of 3 lines (with no name constraint) > -- the last line of the explicit grid > > With this algorithm, we try to preserve as much as possible the two > assumptions of this kind of span: > -- at least three lines will be spanned > -- the span will not cross the explicit grid boundaries > > While this is open for debate, I would propose to apply this rule in two > cases: > - no line is named "invalid-name" at all. > - no line is named "invalid-name" after the line from which the span is > computed. > (currently, the second one reverts to a span of 1 after error correction) > > Thoughts? So, fantasai and I discussed your proposal and reviewed the error-handling rules again, and we think we've got a simpler proposal: assume that all lines outside the explicit grid have all possible names. This lets us be consistent in all the error-handling cases where there aren't enough lines of a given name, which makes the whole thing easier to understand. It's also more noticeably wrong, which is an acceptable outcome here - if the author fat-fingers a line name, the item will get positioned somewhere obviously weird, and they'll be able to correct it. We've gone ahead and committed this change to the draft. Thoughts? ~TJ and fantasai
Received on Monday, 7 July 2014 19:14:57 UTC