- From: Emil Björklund <bjorklund.emil@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:31:11 +0200
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPsQUpJgP1R5LQcN+vuyHsH78uKqbnQsL9+QfagXh2JMGvRQGQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 3:44 AM, fantasai <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. //Emil http://thatemil.com http://twitter.com/thatemil
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2015 18:31:58 UTC