- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:53:53 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed ``[css-grid-3][masonry] Drop `next` value of `masonry-auto-flow` ``, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Drop the next value of masonry auto flow` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <flackr> fantasai: we have this value for masonry auto flow, instead of finding the shortest column it keeps wrapping around regardless of the heights of the columns. If you have different height columns they can be placed very far apart because it doesn't consider their size<br> <flackr> fantasai: it seems weird when you have slight variations in column height to jump columns (e.g. jumping to shorter column) so we had this idea for a threshold property to say if you're within some slack of other columns assume they're all the same<br> <flackr> fantasai: since we have that functionality which needs more precise spec, this solves the same problems that next was trying to solve but better<br> <flackr> fantasai: e.g. with a 100vh gap you probably don't want to do this next column behavior<br> <flackr> fantasai: proposal is to drop the next value from masonry auto flow<br> <flackr> fantasai: you can easily configure with a threshold<br> <TabAtkins> +1 to all that<br> <TabAtkins> (i do think an "infinite" keyword would be *useful* in masonry-threshold, but it's fine either way)<br> <flackr> astearns: IIRC, you can do it with masonry-threshold but you have to do it with a hacky calc?<br> <TabAtkins> `masonry-threshold: calc(infinity)` isn't terrible to write anyway<br> <flackr> fantasai: we could add a keyword that's infinity, but i can't think of a good use case for this. Would like to see a use case for why you'd need this<br> <flackr> astearns: any other comments?<br> <miriam> q+<br> <fantasai> I can't think of a reason why you'd need anything greater than 100vmax<br> <TabAtkins> I do have a use-case for actual infinity, but we don't need to talk about it here; it's a side-discussion from this issue.<br> <flackr> astearns: oriol mentioned he's opposed to dropping it without a keyword but it seemsl ike it could be a separate issue<br> <astearns> ack miriam<br> <flackr> miriam: That could be a separate issue, oriol did add an example to the thread. The use case is if you want stability, e.g. to not have disclosure widget move columns<br> <flackr> miriam: is that an issue if you can't choose some stable value?<br> <flackr> fantasai: we need to solve the stability issue somehow. You wouldn't want giant gaps in masonry regardless. You wouldn't want weird column heights / stuff jumping around. I think stability is a different issue<br> <flackr> miriam: makes sense<br> <flackr> Proposed resolution: Drop the next value of masonry auto flow<br> <flackr> RESOLVED: Drop the next value of masonry auto flow<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10232#issuecomment-2221015339 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 10 July 2024 16:53:54 UTC