- From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:52:20 +0200
- To: "'fantasai'" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: "'Rachel Andrew'" <rachelandrewuk@gmail.com>
> On 07/25/2015 06:19 AM, Emil Björklund wrote: > > > > My main point was just that the total size of all tracks would no > > longer be defined in one place, which could potentially be confusing, > > so maybe the spec should have a note or cross-reference. > > Hm, that's an interesting point: should the row gaps and column gaps be > included in the sizes of the tracks or no? > > ~fantasai I would argue the latter is more useful. More often than not, you want to use at least some items spanning 1row+1col, and you want to control their size using the grid. If the track size contains the gap, increasing or reducing the row-gap has an impact on all tracks as you resize the grid and want not to change the width/height of those 1cell-items. A valid reason to tweak the row/col gap may be media queries (as you change the amount of rows/tracks, you may want to tweak the gap while not the size of the items). Row-gap/col-gap is only good for a minimum gap, though. I would argue that aligning the tracks using a "distribute" or "justify" alignment style will be required if some flexibility is allowed for the row/col gap depending on the screen size (see Windows Explorer file grid, for instance). An issue in that case would be to control how big you accept the gap to become (i.e. a "max-track-gap-due-to-distributed-alignment".
Received on Tuesday, 11 August 2015 18:52:47 UTC