- From: Nico Burns via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2023 17:19:07 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> grid-gap having been generalized as gap for usage in flexbox actually made it impossible to detect support for gap in flexbox with @supports (as the gap property was already supported by browsers implementing Grid with the new property name). So is it a good idea to generalize like that ? Hmm... I think that would be less likely to be a problem here if this was included in the first version the masonry spec as you would be able to just test for masonry support at all. In general, I would prefer properties to be combined like this. Otherwise you end up with lots of duplicates which is much harder for authors to remember. Imagine if margin, padding, aspect-ratio, etc all had separate variants for each layout mode. -- GitHub Notification of comment by nicoburns Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9041#issuecomment-1779723832 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 25 October 2023 17:19:09 UTC