- From: Rachel Andrew <rachelandrewuk@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 06:16:23 +0100
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <0C83C392-BE62-4F35-BB5E-3A9FE01E3CE6@gmail.com>
> On 20 Apr 2016, at 19:16, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > > You can't create additional tracks in this proposal - subgrids have no > implicit grid. You have to plan ahead and allocate exactly as many > tracks as you're going to need. thanks for the explanation. > > We acknowledge that this is a limitation, but not a killer one for > most cases. A lot of cases that look like "subgrid" can actually just > be handled by nesting a grid, which has full powers to create implicit > tracks. The main unhandled case is wanting a nested grid that cares > about the parent grid's lines in one axis only; this case appears to > be relatively rare/niche, and requires a *significantly* more > complicated solution, so we're proposing to defer it. I’ve written up my understanding of this, along with a potential use case (for design system components)[1]. It doesn’t feel like a niche case to me however perhaps it is in practice or this is enough of a step forward to get round the downsides and still be shippable. If this is where the spec goes I would also like to see options left open for a return of the single dimension subgrid in a future level (as Rego mentioned). 1. https://rachelandrew.co.uk/archives/2016/04/25/a-revised-subgrid-specification/ <https://rachelandrew.co.uk/archives/2016/04/25/a-revised-subgrid-specification/> Rachel
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2016 05:16:53 UTC