[css-grid] syntax errors in examples

[phax]

Spec version: hhttps://www.w3.org/TR/2017/CR-css-grid-1-20170209/

Example 1 is missing one closing bracket (2. bullet point, at @media print {)

Example 2 uses the → character - what's the purpose?

Example 31 is missing the closing comment after Equivalent to grid-area: 2 / 3;

Example 43 uses … instead of CSS comment

Thanks and keep up the good work!

[SelenIT]

I suppose it's usually better to link to the current Editor's draft then to the published snapshot, since the spec changes constanly and even the numbering of the examples is now different (e.g. the old Example 1 is now Example 3). But at least some of the errors you mentioned are still in place.

In the example 43 (Example 41 in the current ED), I guess the point of these … was not to replace CSS comments, but to mark that there is some CSS code was skipped, something like "replace this with the CSS code that creates a 4-column / 3-row grid container". Have you any ideas how this can be expressed more clearly, other than to place the actual code instead?

[phax]

I personally would simple change … 4-column / 3-row grid container … to /* … 4-column / 3-row grid container … */

The intention of writing this issue was basically that all stuff from the examples that looks like code can be copy-pasted into a real CSS. That's all. I personally use the code as examples for my CSS parser to see that he gets everything right.

[SelenIT]

If the goal is to enable copy-paste the examples for testing, the actual code to create such grid container (e.g. grid-template-columns: repeat(4, 1fr); grid-template-rows: repeat(3, 1fr);) needs to be added after (or instead of) the comment. Wouldn't it make the example too verbose?

[phax]

I personally don't think so - there are so many specs out there that it is hard to read all of them in depth - therefore having working examples as a basis would imho be a good idea.
If you choose not to - I also understand your reasons....

[mrego]

I agree it'd be nice to fix the examples, so just in case people copy&paste them we avoid weird confusions.

[mrego]

This should be fixed now by #1181.