- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 10:00:59 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 9:36 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 04/26/2016 04:55 AM, Brad Kemper wrote: >>> On Apr 20, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> 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 >> >> What are you basing that "rare/niche" on? Gut feeling? Anecdotal >> observation? Some statistics? Just wondering. > > I have no idea. I'm not so sure it's that niche, either. Intuition mostly. It's higher in complexity than the previous cases, so that's a strike against it being common; it's just less likely for higher-complexity cases to *occur*, as you have more requirements that need to all line up at once. I can imagine the other cases coming up commonly, tho. Also, I just don't think this subgrid approach is the right solution for it. It's... too clumsy, for a case with these requirements. *If* we satisfy the use-case, it'll be just barely, and there will be closely-related use-cases that I think are equally valid that aren't addressed at all. I don't like trying to fight into this sort of space unless it's trivial; adding a lot of implementation complexity for something that's likely rare and that isn't even solved "properly" is a losing proposition. (The right solution for things in this vein, I believe, is something like what François argued for in one email, where you somehow tie grids together and make them share track sizes. This gives you a lot of flexibility to explore this space of use-cases, but it's also complex and hard, so I'm not willing to explore it unless/until it proves necessary.) > But it was something Igalia found frightening, but didn't > seem as critical as the other three features listed in > "Rationale", so we dropped it from the proposal. > > If its considered critical then we can update the proposal > to incorporate it. I think it wouldn't be that hard: just > don't ignore 'grid-template-*' in the subgrid, and only > propagate the parent grid lines if their value is 'none'. > > It would be treated as a subgrid in one dimension and as > a regular spanning child element (as 'display: grid') in > the other. It's not that trivial. It fundamentally changes how the parent grid and subgrid interact in a complex way that will be really annoying to integrate into the layout algorithm; in the non-subgrid axis you'll have a set of tracks that are being sized under two separate sets of constraints at the same time. I'm 100% opposed to non-trivial changes and bugfixes to the layout algorithm at this point; we can revisit it in a while after implementations have stabilized, but right now is *not* the right time to rip things up in there. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 27 April 2016 17:01:47 UTC