- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 10:18:21 -0700
- To: Manuel Rego Casasnovas <rego@igalia.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:40 AM, Manuel Rego Casasnovas <rego@igalia.com> wrote: > Hi, > > this is a similar mail to the previous one. > > In the current syntax for grid-template [1] we have: > [ <line-names>? <string> <track-size>? <line-names>? ]+ > [ / <track-list> ]? > > This means that the following declaration would be invalid: > grid-template: "a b" > "a b" / repeat(auto-fill, 100px); > > I guess that as you are defining the grid areas, > you know the number of columns and don't need auto-repeat. > > However, you can do something like this: > grid-template: "a b" > "a b" / repeat(5, 100px); > Or: > grid-template: "a b" > "a b" / 400px 200px 100px 50px; > > And this is valid from the syntax point of view. > > Do we really want to have an exception for auto-repeat here or not? > > FWIW, right now it's valid in all auto-repeat implementations (Blink, > Webkit and Firefox). > > Bye, > Rego > > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/css-grid-1/#explicit-grid-shorthand The whole point of that branch of the grid-template grammar is to make things line up ASCII-art-style. Allowing repeat() in the column sizes violates that; columns either don't get a corresponding size in the track list, or line up badly. Also, it's *really* nonsensical to allow repeat() in the row-sizing part of the grammar, and it's bad to be inconsistent and allow things in one spot but not the other. Allowing the auto-repeat things in either of those makes even *less* sense. If it's an implementation burden, we can allow it, but I'd prefer to disallow. (And we messed up - fixed-reps repeat() *shouldn't* be allowed in the column-sizing part; we just referred to <track-list> without paying enough attention.) ~TJ
Received on Monday, 23 May 2016 17:19:09 UTC