W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2016

Re: [css-grid] Reduced Subgrid Proposal

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 23:24:14 +0300
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Manuel Rego Casasnovas <rego@igalia.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <571E7CEE.2020701@inkedblade.net>
On 04/20/2016 01:53 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:36 AM, Manuel Rego Casasnovas <rego@igalia.com> wrote:
>> On 15/04/16 00:35, fantasai wrote:
>>> Major Use Cases Not Handled
>>> ===========================
>>>    Requiring subgrids to work in both axes at once means
>>>    the following use case cannot be handled:
>>>    header  header
>>>    sidebar main
>>>    footer  footer
>>>    where main is a catalog whose columns line up with
>>>    content in the header and footer (and therefore need
>>>    to be part of the main grid) but whose rows are auto
>>>    flow, and therefore need to be independent of the
>>>    main grid. Without single-axis subgridding, we can't
>>>    add rows to main without disrupting the alignment of
>>>    main to sidebar and the placement of footer.
>> What will happen with this in the future?
>> If we eventually want to support something like that, the new syntax
>> "display: subgrid;" might be an issue.
>> I'm not sure how important is this use case, but if we want to support
>> it at some point (level 2), we should think in the syntax beforehand.
> Actually, that specific case is handled just fine by this - make sure
> the catalog items are in some wrapper (which they probably will be
> anyway, like a <ul> or something) and just make it a display:grid
> positioned in the "main" area.  It can then set up the lines that it
> wants for the catalog items to subgrid against.
> The more complex case that isn't handled is if, for example, the
> "main" area spans several columns, and you want the catalog items to
> care about those columns, but you don't know how many rows there will
> be so you can't line it up with the parent grid's rows.  I think this
> (and a chunk of similar complex use-cases) is best served by something
> like the idea Fran├žois had earlier, of linking together grids in some
> way so they size their grid tracks together.  This is complex and hard
> to get right, so we're going to avoid it unless absolutely necessary,
> but I think it's the way to go if we do end up needing to do this sort
> of thing.

Tab, the "complex case" you're talking about is exactly the one
described in the OP...

Received on Monday, 25 April 2016 20:24:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:02 UTC