Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-grid-3] Designer/developer feedback on masonry layout (#10233)

Thanks Jen Simmons and Rachel Andrews for writing such in-depth articles about the future of CSS!

After reading both the Jen's Webkit and Rachel's Chrome articles, I would say I'm leaning towards masonry being its own display type. The masonry layout is more concerned about one axis like flexbox, rather than grid's concern over both axes. 

If masonry was added to the grid spec, I think the amount of properties that do not cross-over from one layout to the other would make troubleshooting issues a big pain. Some values seem logical with masonry while should throw errors in grid : `repeat(auto-fill, auto)`. 

I use grid constantly and am well versed in the syntax and I think masonry should share a lot of the terminology and functionality but they should still be separate display types. 

One is issue I have with the Webkit article is their case for subgrid. I've tried shoe-horning subgrid into projects several times and it never really makes sense to me. In their example (I understand it's an example and maybe not the best real-world scenario), I think it would make more sense to define the layout of the card so that the cards are all uniform. Their use of subgrid seems arbitrary since every card is taking up two columns, one of those columns on the parent is just to align child's content. That seems like classic case of over-parenting.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by rileymcmaster
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10233#issuecomment-2182963544 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Friday, 21 June 2024 15:24:37 UTC