- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 10:36:08 -0700
- To: Manuel Rego Casasnovas <rego@igalia.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Manuel Rego Casasnovas <rego@igalia.com> wrote: > On 16/09/14 03:33, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 2:09 AM, Manuel Rego Casasnovas <rego@igalia.com> wrote: >>> Hi Tab, >>> >>> On 21/07/14 23:13, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>>> Yeah, I think I'm going to reword that entire subsection into separate >>>> algos for normal, "dense", and "stack". >>> >>> Any progress on this? >>> >>> I'd like to know the final wording before finishing the implementation >>> for "stack" in Blink and WebKit. >> >> Done now. I've also reworded the algo a bit to be clearer about >> positioning the *grid area*, as opposed to the grid item itself. > > Thanks for the update. The new grid-auto-flow syntax seems > better/clearer to me than the previous one. > > Anyway, I've a question related to the placement algorithm. The sparse, > dense and stack algorithms are not mentioned in the first step: > 1. Process the items locked to a given row. > > So, imagine that you have a grid with "grid-auto-flow: row". The > algorithm should be sparse, however if you have the following items: > <div style="grid-row: 1; grid-column: 2;">item 1</div> > <div style="grid-row: 1; grid-column: span 2;">item 2</div> > <div style="grid-row: 1; grid-column: auto;">item 3</div> > > * item 1 will be placed at row 1 and column 2 as expected. > * item 2 at row 1 and columns 3-4. > * item 3 at row 1 and column 1. > > So, even when this was supposed to be sparse, it's following a dense > algorithm. The same result would happen if the grid is marked as stack. > > Am I missing something? Or should we take into account the algorithm in > this step too? You're not missing anything; that bit is unchanged from the earliest drafts. (Funnily enough, at the time "sparse" was the only algorithm, so there was still a disconnect in intentions.) I'll bring this up in a top-level thread. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2014 17:36:57 UTC