- From: Manuel Rego Casasnovas <rego@igalia.com>
- Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:39:48 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 08/01/15 23:00, fantasai wrote: > So, I think the spec is pretty clear on how the width/height are > calculated: > they're calculated wrt the containing block, which defined to be the > grid area. > However, it is kindof weird: the static position is determined based on > a larger rectangle (the grid container) while the containing block is > a smaller rectangle (the grid area). I'm not sure that's a great > definition. > It might make sense for static positioning to honor grid positioning as > well. Yes, that was my doubt, as it's kind of confusing that we follow the placement properties for the size but not for the static positon. > Another issue you bring up is, if one of the grid lines is the padding edge > (which is what an 'auto' grid position indicates for abspos elements > contained > by the grid container), and the second grid line is a span, where does > it span > to? The padding edge doesn't have a defined relationship to the other > grid lines. Right. I was not thinking like one line is the padding edge, but I agree with you about that. > A third issue is, what if there aren't enough lines for the abspos? Some > possible > answers: > * attach to the padding edge instead > * attach to the last available grid line (if any) > * create "invisible" grid lines to attach to -- that don't affect > layout of the > grid container's in-flow contents > > (Does that about summarize the issues or did I miss one? :) Yes, thank you very much. Cheers, Rego
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2015 23:40:37 UTC