- From: David via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2024 17:48:26 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I support "Just use Grid". At first It seemed like it made sense to make it all separate but after seeing some of the example thrown around I think keeping it as part of a grid is the right call. First of all, semantically masonry is just a grid with particular properties, it makes no sense to create yet another set of properties. Things are as confusing as they are right now with flex and grid sometimes not knowing which properties I should use to adjust layouts. You have also decided on the `gap` keyword to be more generic and focus on what it does, a gap between things, no matter if they are grid like or flex like. Why should you create a new display (which is something that should not be done lightly) when it masonry literally looks like a grid. To me the `display` property should be used very sparingly and for very explicit things. I feel like adding a new display is using a bazooka to kill a fly to create such a high level of complexity just because someone wants to name a particular type of grid layout totally different. This also means that the name of this "UX pattern" is bleeding into the implementation of the browser, what if people grow tired of this name and rebrand it some years in the future? I think we all are tired of having to deal with inconsistent naming in our own codebases, would be terrible to have to do the same here. I also believe it should not have the name `masonry` anywhere. -- GitHub Notification of comment by dagadbm Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11060#issuecomment-2468725542 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 11 November 2024 17:48:27 UTC