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

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

From: Emil Björklund <bjorklund.emil@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 20:31:11 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPsQUpJgP1R5LQcN+vuyHsH78uKqbnQsL9+QfagXh2JMGvRQGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:55 UTC