- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 19:46:28 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/15/2015 04:24 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 6:02 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> We didn't do this for abspos whose containing block is an ancestor of the >> grid container because if that ancestor was also a grid container, the >> grid positioning properties on the abspos would have been chosen for that >> ancestor's grid, and would be inappropriate to this one. >> >> However, we could alternately always honor the grid-positioning properties >> for determining the static position. It's only the case where both the >> parent and the containing block are grid containers, but are not the same >> grid container, that's weird if we do this. >> >> Proposals: >> A) Make static position of case C honor grid-positioning properties >> B) Make static positions of all cases where the grid container is the >> static position containing block (i.e. cases A and C) honor the >> grid-positioning properties >> C) Make the static position not honor grid-positioning properties >> >> Thoughts? > > As you argue in the paragraph quoted above, case B is terrible and we > can't do it. Case C is terrible for reasons you explained earlier in > the email (elided here). Case A is the only one that makes any sense > at all. I don't think B is terrible. It is merely weird in the cases where 1. static position containing block is a grid container 2. abspos containing block is a grid container 3. abspos is using its static (not explicit) position All three have to be true to have a weirdness. ~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 16 May 2015 23:46:58 UTC