- From: Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 20:16:12 +0000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Sergio Villar Senin <svillar@igalia.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] > Sent: Thursday, January 8, 2015 3:28 PM > > # Since memory is not infinite, UAs may clamp the the possible size > # of the grid to within a UA-defined limit, dropping all lines > # outside that limit. If a grid item spans outside this limit, its > # span must be clamped to the last line of the limited grid. If a > # grid item is placed outside this limit, its span must be truncated > # to 1 and the item repositioned into the last grid track on that > # side of the grid. The current wording sounds good. I would like to see a simple formula illustrating this error handling in terms of position and size. Example: Assume grid line allowed bounds are A to N. A grid item is specified as start-line : M and span : K Position of the start edge of a grid item is computed as max(min(M, N-1), A) Spanning is ignored and clamped to 1. > Another option would be, if a repeat() function were involved, to clamp the > number of repetitions rather than clamping the resulting explicit grid. Imho > this isn't worth the additional complexity, but I'm open to other opinions. Simple error handling is always better than clever one - I agree with you on this one. Thanks, Rossen
Received on Monday, 12 January 2015 20:16:44 UTC