- From: Tyler Sticka via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 16:17:15 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I appreciate all the thought that's gone into this so far. I'd be delighted to use either proposed direction. That said, I prefer `display: masonry` conceptually. For context, in [our client work](https://cloudfour.com/made/) we're sometimes called upon to implement masonry grids. We are often asked to embed in existing design and dev teams to help teach them modern web standards over the course of the project. In recent years, the two primary methods we've used to pull off masonry layouts are: - Flexbox for consistent row sizes. We adjust the `flex-basis` based on the item's expected percentage of the total row width. - Grid for consistent column sizes. We set the row span based on the expected aspect ratio of the content, either server side for imagery or client side for dynamic content. What I've personally observed is: - Neither feels more intuitive than the other as a starting point for masonry. So it feels a little itchy to use either as a starting point. - While there is friction when teaching folks when to use a Flexbox versus a Grid, it's a much bigger leap for contributors to wrap their heads around properties that significantly change behavior (such as `flex-wrap` or `grid-auto-flow: dense`). But again, either proposal would be simpler to use (and teach) than the hacks we currently resort to. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tylersticka Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9041#issuecomment-2361455973 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2024 16:17:16 UTC