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

Re: [css-grid] Summary of Abspos Issues

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sat, 16 May 2015 19:46:28 -0400
Message-ID: <5557D6D4.8070404@inkedblade.net>
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

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