Comments on: W3C CSS Grid Positioning

By: skippyK

skippyK — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 22:19:15 +0000

Display:table (and all the associated properties) would be awesome, but it’s still not a complete solution. Principally, it still demands source ordering be in visual rather than semantic order (in fact, for many layouts, display:table etc. would be a step backwards). I’m not dissing display:table, or display:*, all current display values have incredibly useful applications and ubiquitous support for them would completely change how we do our jobs for the better. But the CSS3 grid layout spec is attempting to solve different layout issues.

By: Menno

Menno — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:15:30 +0000

Dustin, I’m afraid the display:table spec will be of little use since it has no equivalent for colspan and rowspan. This grid spec looks very promising even if the syntax is a bit obscure. I’m also looking forward to implementations of the CSS3 template spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3-layout-20051215/#template-based

By: Dustin Diaz

Dustin Diaz — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:58:23 +0000

This seems neat. But why not just get display:table correct? We all know what tables do and how they work. Why bother reinventing this wheel.

By: staaky

staaky — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 23:38:10 +0000

Let’s not make CSS more complicated then it is. This spec, especially the syntax, could use some rethinking. The syntax looks more complex then what’s actually created with it. Hopefully some effort will be spent on making it as readable and easy to use as the rest of CSS.

I’d rather use the current spec with a bit of creativity and get the job done then using: body { grid-columns: “left-edge” * 1em * 0.5em “center” 0.5em * 1em * “right-edge”; }, no thanks.

By: skippyK

skippyK — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:31:37 +0000

Is there a link for Dmitri’s prediction? I’d like to read his reasoning (personally, I think it would be awesome if IE were to implement this (presuming they implemented it correctly). If they did, it would be in the other three engines faster than you can say “IE7 is the new IE6″

By: Harald

Harald — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:16:51 +0000

i don’t like the syntax of this concept. i also get a headache if i think of the future, where microsoft invents a grid layout without talking to apple/opera/mozilla …

By: John Allsopp

John Allsopp — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:07:05 +0000

Just to clarify, the grid aspects are not as yet supported by either Firefox or Safari faict, but the multi-column properties are

By: John Allsopp

John Allsopp — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:05:30 +0000

Multicolumn layout is already quite widely supported in shipping browsers. Safari 3 (as shipping in Mac OS X 10.4.11 and 10.5), though sadly not mobile Safari support it with the -webkit- prefix. Firefox 2 (and possible even 1.5) support it with the -moz- prefix as well.

john

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:21:19 +0000

Yes! Proper column-grid layout is what I’ve been waiting for!!
.
It is an effective technique, used in all types of print design and familiar to readers all over the world — once column layout is in a spec, it will change webpage design forever, mark my words.
.
I started out as a layout designer for print, and print layout can make web layout look like a middle-school yearbook made on a photocopier. Web layout often looks like a cut-and-paste collage, because there are so many restrictions on how content can flow, and it is very difficult to relatively align and size page elements.
.
This spec may look like a headache to coders, but it’s just the numbers side of a Pagemaker or Quark layout. It will actually be much easier to do WYSIWYG with this spec — because elements are relatively aligned and sized they will basically put themselves into place.
.
Especially as we move forward with technology, screen sizes vary more widely. Column layout will help webpages adapt to all screen sizes, small or large. Imagine being able to have an article presented in 4 columns on a widescreen, and 1 long column on a handheld. — Or you could have the handheld snap-scroll horizontally by column. Sounds simple, but it can’t be done now without heavy javascript (which I am investigating, because I want this technique for handhelds).
.
Up with columns!! Up up up!

By: Premasagar

Premasagar — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:35:31 +0000

Let’s hope it comes soon.
Floats and positioning can be as clumsy as tables… It’s about time that CSS got a proper, intentional grid…

By: Jon Hartmann

Jon Hartmann — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:34:16 +0000

That syntax and thinking makes my head hurt.

By: Marty

Marty — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:02:19 +0000

Anyone here remember the MULTICOL tag, rather?

By: Marty

Marty — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:01:27 +0000

Anyone here remember the tag?

http://www.htmlref.com/reference/AppA/tag_multicol.htm

I predict this will meet with as much success.

By: emehrkay

emehrkay — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:35:37 +0000

Cool, css tables. 100% height?

By: deadcabbit

deadcabbit — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:49:59 +0000

“CSS grids are painful right now!” – Oh tables, good old tables :D

By: Site Smart

Site Smart — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:31:05 +0000

interesting concept. Ms actually bothered submitting a spec to w3c??? LOL

By: Jeria

Jeria — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:08:55 +0000

http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2007/10/12/css-positioning-three-specs-better-than-one/

By: Morgan Roderick

Morgan Roderick — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:00:58 +0000

That’s a daring prediction … but at least it will allow him to bash browser vendors in a “these-predictions-failed” post, which are so popular these days.