Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-grid-3][masonry] Masonry Syntax Debate (#11243)

If we were to choose from the two options presented, I prefer the “Just use Grid” option.

I have a bigger take on this, which I just can't find an opportunity to write up properly, but the gist is that with masonry we're mixing two things: [one-dimensional layouts](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-grid-3/#collapse) (without the masonry specifically, as a wider feature), and the masonry auto-placement algorithm. I'd want the first feature as a part of a CSS grid, regardless of the masonry. Then, having one-dimensional grids, introducing an alternative placement algorithm in addition sounds like a reasonable iterative approach.

I am against the `display: masonry` for the reasons presented by Jen and Ahmad, specifically the fallbacks and conditional adjustments aspects. It is much easier to adjust or create a fallback for something when you don't have to change N different properties at the same time. I would prefer learning a slightly different syntax for specific cases rather than an additional set of slightly different properties.

> What is the strongest argument for the option you do not prefer?

I agree with the arguments for the grid-independent option about good defaults and shorthands. However, I can see a future where, instead of putting the current flawed grid aside and giving up on it in favor of a new system, we could see if we could improve what we have. With new keywords added to the mix, they allow us to change the way shorthands behave, and design things better. It is true that authors rarely use the `grid` shorthand, and that means that we should look into how we could improve it for all the cases.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by kizu
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11243#issuecomment-2518017618 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2024 16:54:22 UTC