- From: Óscar Otero via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2024 09:24:42 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I think masonry should have its own `display` value instead of being integrated in the `grid` spec. Reasons: - The difference between a regular `grid` and a `masonry` grid is just as different as `grid` and `flex`. - In fact, if masonry had to be integrated in one of both, I think it should be integrated in `flex` rather than `grid` because the behavior is more similar to a flexbox (one-dimenson flow). - Grid is already a pretty complex feature. Adding masonry features will make it even more complex and hard to understand. - There are already some new properties like [`masonry-auto-flow`](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/masonry-auto-flow), [`justify-tracks`](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/justify-tracks) and [`align-tracks`](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/align-tracks) that were created only for masonry but don't make sense for other grid use cases, which is confusing. - In the same way than `grid` and `flex` share some properties like `gap`, `align-items`, `justify-content`, etc, `grid` and `masonry` can share only the properties that make sense for both. - In general, it's better to have multiple small solutions than one-fit-all solution. -- GitHub Notification of comment by oscarotero Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10233#issuecomment-2071833016 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2024 09:24:43 UTC