- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:29:13 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Julien Chaffraix <jchaffraix@google.com>
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 12:45 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 02/03/2014 06:20 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> I know it's currently at-risk, but I don't feel like that section of >> the spec will be CR-ready before Chrome and IE are ready to ship >> implementations of the rest of the spec publicly. We should go ahead >> and punt it now, rather than pretending that it'll stay through to CR >> or delaying the CR of the spec due to this. > > That would be equivalent to shipping Regions with only element-based > region containers. The reason many people in the WG are against that > is because it encourages bad markup design. Shipping grid without > subgrid also encourages bad markup design. Worse, in fact, because it > requires *stripping* markup that otherwise would be there, not just > adding in a few extraneous empty elements. > > So I find this proposal problematic and I find your logic inconsistent. I'm not sure what's inconsistent about it; could you elaborate? It is slightly problematic - you know that I agree with you that subgrids are a valuable feature. But what's more valuable than subgrids is *making Grid usable at all*, and implementations are ready to go right now. Grid is extremely valuable, and I don't think it should be delayed any further for features that are valuable but not required for an initial implementation. *Most* use-cases of Grid, including the major one of overall page layout, are fine without subgrid, and shouldn't be delayed. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 3 March 2014 19:30:00 UTC