- From: Keith Grant via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 18:58:19 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I agree that masonry should be it’s own thing apart from grid, using `display: masonry` or similar. I just posted a quick [write up](https://keithjgrant.com/posts/2024/05/weighing-in-on-css-masonry/) why I think so. There are plenty of other arguments beyond this. For instance, masonry truly is a hybrid layout, more like grid in one direction and flexbox in the other. But the biggest thing for me is the learning path. It's a lot easier to learn masonry, then discover a lot of that knowledge can be applied to grid than it is to learn all of grid, then selectively piece together which parts of it can and cannot apply to masonry. I think a huge number of developers only interact with grid using `grid-template-areas` and that level of understanding has almost nothing that transfers over to masonry. I think it’s okay to have a number of parallel properties between masonry and grid. That's kind of how placement already works between flex and grid (e.g. `align-items` works in both but `justify-items` only in grid). This also makes clean which grid behaviors don’t apply to masonry, since there would be no corresponding masonry property. -- GitHub Notification of comment by keithjgrant Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/10233#issuecomment-2118210827 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 17 May 2024 18:58:20 UTC