Re: [css-grid] Summary of Abspos Issues

On May 16, 2015 7:50 PM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>
> 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.

That's not too rare, and A avoid the weirdness in all cases. There's no
benefit to B; the cases where it diverges from A are just weird.

~TJ