- From: Kevin Babbitt via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 23:40:21 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
+1 to Tab's and Rachel's comments. A theme I saw in the developer feedback thread is that integrating masonry into grid would build on existing knowledge of grid syntax and simplify some fallback cases. I agree that, for an author who has mastered CSS Grid, switching in one `masonry` keyword is simpler than having to rename declarations and add an `@supports` for fallback. I don't see anything in Tab's proposal that would hinder the knowledge transfer at a conceptual level, though. I'd like to advocate instead on behalf of new authors who want to jump straight into building a masonry layout. Which of the following would represent the lowest barrier to entry? 1. Start from a spec defining the syntax only for additions to Grid that make Masonry work, then back-fill the missing assumed knowledge about Grid from elsewhere. 2. Start from a spec defining the syntax for the union of everything possible in both Grid and Masonry, then digest additional prose to understand which of those options apply to Masonry. 3. Start from a spec defining the syntax only for what's possible in Masonry and nothing else. In my opinion, the benefits of 3 to new authors in setting aside advanced Grid features until they're needed, outweigh the inconveniences to experienced authors, who presumably are already used to dealing with different property names for different contexts and having to implement graceful fallback. -- GitHub Notification of comment by kbabbitt Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9041#issuecomment-2076051764 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2024 23:40:22 UTC