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

Re: [css-grid] Capping the size of grids?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2015 17:29:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDApGFXKemxJ=575P+hKHCrFcZFj28OGhi+AwbtPE2q8gA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sergio Villar Senin <svillar@igalia.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Sergio Villar Senin <svillar@igalia.com> wrote:
> On 22/08/14 02:36, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Sergio Villar Senin <svillar@igalia.com> wrote:
>>> The current spec allows implementors to cap the number of repetitions
>>> allowed for the repeat() function[1]. I'd like to propose to extend this
>>> to the values accepted by the grid positioning properties. The rationale
>>> behind this is that those positioning properties might act as grid
>>> definition properties (by creating implicit grid tracks), allowing
>>> authors to do things like: "grid-row-start: ARBITRARY_HUGE_NUMBER;"
>>>
>>> So my proposal would be to remove the special case of repeat() in the
>>> specs and replace it by a more general statement allowing implementors
>>> to cap the number of tracks, no matter if they're explicitly or
>>> implicitly defined.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>
>> Yes, this is an oversight in the spec; we didn't think of the fact
>> that positioning might create an overly-large implicit grid.  I've
>> generalized the allowance to limit the size of the grid to apply to
>> the explicit and implicit grids in general.
>
> And there is another question, what would happen with the resolved
> values for grid-template-*? As they are the used values, I guess that we
> should output 0px for all the grid tracks over the limits, is that correct?

If you're asking about the tracks past the UA limit, those tracks
don't exist in the first place, so they of course don't show up in the
resolved value.

If you're asking about the tracks past the explicit grid, those all
get appropriately sizes (per grid-auto-row/column) and show up in the
resolved value.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 8 May 2015 00:30:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:54 UTC