Re: [csswg-drafts] Alternate masonry path forward (#9041)

@nicoburns Merging `gap` worked because `flex-gap` and `grid-gap` were *identical*; absolutely zero differences in syntax. It was solely a difference in property name. Same for the `*-self/items/content` properties; exactly which set of properties apply varies between layout modes, but when they do apply, they use the same values. (I was skeptical of this  when @fantasai first suggested merging the Flex and Grid alignment properties, but I was wrong!)

(Agreed on the naming, tho - we made a mistake in Flexbox in making it too flex-direction centric rather than just sticking with logical directions, and that hampered our ability to use logical-direction names. They absolutely should have been `block-align-self`/etc.)

However, as I pointed out at the end of [my previous comment](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9041#issuecomment-2075501616), this isn't true for Masonry/Grid. *Almost none* of the overlapping properties have the same syntax - as far as I can tell, the only ones that do are the placement properties (`grid-row`, etc), minus `grid-area`. Every single other overlapping property has some syntax space that's valid only for Grid, or only for Masonry, or both.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9041#issuecomment-2078577689 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Friday, 26 April 2024 03:42:51 UTC