- From: Manuel Rego Casasnovas <rego@igalia.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:33:42 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
Nit: I think it's step 1 (Process the items locked to a given row) not 2. On 16/09/14 19:44, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > In another thread, Manuel Casasnovas points out that step 2 of the > auto-placement algorithm (which processes items with a definite row > position but auto column position) doesn't vary its behavior based on > the algorithm specified in 'grid-auto-flow'. Interestingly, it > actually does a "dense" packing, as it repeatedly looks for the > "earliest" spot in the row that the item will fit in. (This makes > sense, as it's the easiest way to implement it; doing a sparse packing > would require more work, and wouldn't even maintain the ordering that > is the entire justification for sparse packing.) > > Should we have this step pay attention to the algorithm, or leave it > as it is? I'm inclined to leave it as it is. I also think that it's better to keep it as it is, as you said changing it depending on the algorithm will complicate things and I don't see a clear benefit. This makes me think if the "sparse" algorithm is really needed. If we go with the approach above, "sparse" will be only working as expected for fully auto-placed items and items with a definite column. However, items with a definite row will use "dense". The main goal of "sparse" was keeping the items order, but we're not doing it for items with a definite row. Having a different behavior for items with a definite row vs column might cause confusion. At least I cannot think in a clear use case for "sparse". So maybe we just need to have "dense" and "none" values for grid-auto-flow property. What do you think? Bye, Rego
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2014 11:34:41 UTC