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

Re: [css-grid] row-gap/column-gap issues

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:09:50 -0400
Message-ID: <55A82BAE.4020105@inkedblade.net>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:18 UTC