#712: Review Request for CSS Subgrid

Visit on Github.

Opened Feb 1, 2022

Braw mornin' TAG!

I'm requesting a TAG review of CSS Subgrid.

You can "nest" grids by making a grid item a grid container. These grids however are independent of the parent grid and of each other, meaning that they do not take their track sizing from the parent grid. This makes it difficult to line nested grid items up with the main grid. If you set the value subgrid on grid-template-columns, grid-template-rows or both, instead of creating a new track listing the nested grid uses the tracks defined on the parent.

Further details:

  • I have reviewed the TAG's Web Platform Design Principles
  • Relevant time constraints or deadlines: None
  • The group where the work on this specification is currently being done: CSSWG
  • The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done (if current group is a community group or other incubation venue): CSSWG
  • Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this specification: None
  • This work is being funded by: Microsoft, Google, Firefox, Apple

We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please delete all but the desired option): 🐛 open issues in our GitHub repo for each point of feedback

Discussions

Discussed Feb 14, 2022 (See Github)

Punting to next week

Discussed Feb 28, 2022 (See Github)

Punted to F2F

Discussed May 23, 2022 (See Github)

Rossen: curious feedback on this, it's had a lot of work from CSS WG.

Dan: self assigns

Comment by @LeaVerou Jul 20, 2022 (See Github)

Hi there,

We looked at this today during our plenary and we have no objection to moving this feature forward. Some of us are very familiar with the work, and some of us are very familiar with the strong developer need for this feature and its multi-stakeholder support. While we did not do a deep dive on it in the TAG itself, we do not see any architectural concerns and are happy to see this move forward.

In the future, please include explainers with review requests. While better than nothing, an MDN article is not a substitute for an explainer, as it doesn't satisfy all requirements for what an explainer needs to contain. E.g. not every MDN article includes use cases, and this one does not.