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

Re: [css-grid] Implicit Named Areas

From: Mats Palmgren <mats@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 21:02:40 +0200
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56156C50.3040500@mozilla.com>
On 10/06/2015 10:17 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Mats Palmgren <mats@mozilla.com> wrote:
>> I find the chapter on Implicit Named Areas:
>> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-grid/#implicit-named-areas
>> lacking in details on when and how such an implicit area is created.
>
> The spec doesn't actually "create" any such areas; they exist as a
> spec concept for convenience only.  The placement properties never
> care about areas, they just check for lines with particular names.

Well, I was actually using the spec's own language:
"... effectively creates a named grid area."

> If you said "grid-column-start: A", then it will first look for lines
> named A-start to match against, and failing that, will look for lines
> named A.  Same for grid-column-end and A-end.  That's it.  Whether or
> not lines named A-start or A-end exist, or their relative
> distribution, makes no difference whatsoever.  There is no "A area",
> implicit or otherwise, that is looked for.

OK, thanks, that makes it clear.  But then why don't you just say so in
the spec if this is the behavior you want?  Why introduce these "Implicit
Named Areas" in the first place if they don't serve a useful purpose to
describe the name resolution?

Frankly, I think you should just remove chapter 5.2.2 because it is highly
misleading.  Instead, I'd prefer an algorithm in pseudo-code that steps
through how a <custom-ident> is matched against the names in 'grid-
template-areas' and 'grid-template-columns/rows' near its definition here:
https://drafts.csswg.org/css-grid/#grid-placement-slot

> If either browser is doing something different, they're violating the spec.

Both browsers have bugs in this area.  I can say for the Gecko bugs
that the spec (5.2.2) is what mislead me to implement it wrongly.
Not a big deal, I can correct that in a few hours of work.  I'm just
trying to give you the feedback that the spec describes poorly the
behavior you intended.

Regards,
Mats
Received on Wednesday, 7 October 2015 19:03:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:57 UTC