- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:09:50 -0400
- To: Emil Björklund <bjorklund.emil@gmail.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 06/23/2015 02:31 PM, Emil Björklund wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 3:44 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net <mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>> wrote: > > We've gotten a fair amount of feedback that authors would find Grid Layout > easier to use and generally less confusing if we added row-gap and column-gap > properties to automatically create gutters. > > * It makes track definitions easier to read and write, by eliminating > repetitive "noise". > * It makes repeat() significantly less awkward to use (since we don't > have the trailing-joiner problem). > * It handles gutters for implicit tracks, which is currently not possible. > * It eliminates the problem of auto-placement putting items into tracks > meant to provide gutters. > > > I'm very happy to see this in the spec. My only (very minor) concern is that grid definition now happens in two places. An > author defining a grid with non-flexible grid tracks involved may want to tweak the gutters back and forth a bit, which would > then potentially warrant going back and redefining percentages etc – especially if all tracks are non-flexible. > > I realize that having the gutters simply act as fixed-size tracks is probably a very necessary tradeoff compared to changes in > the track sizing algorithm (proportionally shrinking either tracks or gutters in the case of overflow...?), but it probably > warrants a note or two in the spec. Hi Emil, Why wouldn't you use flexible track sizes in that case? ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2015 22:10:18 UTC