W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2015

Re: [css-grid] Updates and Issues

From: Javier Fernandez <jfernandez@igalia.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 00:30:40 +0100
Message-ID: <54B45920.2000301@igalia.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Hi,

On 01/12/2015 09:49 PM, fantasai wrote:
> Justified Grids
> 
>   DISCUSS: Are we all OK to apply justification to grid tracks,
>   similar to how justification is applied to flex lines?

I think the grid tracks as alignment subject works fine for both
<content-position> and <content-distribution> values, which is
important. Conceptually, content alignment would imply moving the whole
grid content, so using tracks as alignment subject would imply applying
to each track an absolute offset. In case of <content-distribution> it'd
be a relative offset, computed to determine the space between tracks.

I think this definition is flexible and still keeps the previous
behavior of considering the grid as a single unit for alignment when
using just the <content-position> values.

> 
>   DISCUSS: Should 'stretch' affect only auto-sized tracks or
>   affect all tracks equally? [ Goal is to match author expectations.]
>   NOTE: Flex stretches all lines equally; but while flex lines may
>   have different heights, they are all auto-sized, never fixed.

I haven't thought about this issue that much, but considering that the
'stretch' value applied by Self Alignment properties only affects to
auto-sized items (the alignment subject in this case), it'd be perhaps
more coherent to keep the auto-sized tracks restriction for the Content
Distribution properties.

--
javi
Received on Monday, 12 January 2015 23:31:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:56 UTC