Closed AlbertoElias closed 9 years ago
Added here https://github.com/Financial-Times/o-grid/tree/ac5000a9b1219caec8ab207486c2a2e85c21b347. I think it was to tackle the situation where you want your entire page to conform to the grid max-widths, but don't want to apply .o-grid-row
to body
as then all the top-level rows in your design would match .o-grid-row .o-grid-row
, which (at the time at least), had an effect on gutters.
So, should we add a note on the readme that this is deprecated and will be removed in next major release? Or is there a real use case for this?
What about o-grid-box, should I also add a deprecation note for that? I've searched on Github and it's not used anywhere
On both o-grid-page
and o-grid-box
I'm inclined to leave them in - they don't add very much complexity and grid isn't widely used enough to tell if using grid for part of a page is a common use case. I don't feel particularly strongly either way though, so if you @kaelig and @triblondon think they should be removed then go ahead
What exactly is the use case for o-grid-box? I think the way to go should be to add things as they're needed and use cases are discovered.
The use case is when someone wants to lay out a part of the page using the grid but the rest of the page doesn't use the grid. At the time of putting it in the idea of individual origami components being responsive hadn't been discussed so o-grid-box felt necessary.
Anyway, your call whether to keep it in
The use case is when someone wants to lay out a part of the page using the grid but the rest of the page doesn't use the grid
I'm afraid I still don't get why this needs an extra class. If part of your page uses the grid, you use o-grid-row
on those bits, wouldn't you?
It's quite possible that back in the day o-grid wasn't very friendly to non o-grid things in some way that is not an issue now.
It's not well explained in the readme. @wheresrhys can you remember?