- From: Nick F via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 17:27:58 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I also have a strong preference for `display: masonry` over adding this functionality to CSS Grid, because: - Adding masonry to CSS Grid would make it signficantly harder to learn and understand. At the moment I think contrasting Grid with Flexbox can be a useful way of developing a mental model of what problems they each solve. But masonry has Flexbox-y aspects (it's not _entirely_ unlike a wrapping flex layout), and the defining feature of grid is the ability to control layout in two dimensions, which you partially give up in a masonry-type layout. Given that, adding masonry to grid would make it harder to clearly articulate the difference between Flexbox and Grid - I'm not convinced masonry layouts really are a type of grid: if you're having to effectively disregard one of the grid dimensions then my feeling is that this is fundamentally not the same type of layout, even if it has similarities - Even aside from these considerations, the proposed syntax for `display: masonry` seems generally simpler, so would probably be preferable even in the absence of these other considerations. (I realise I'm mostly echoing things other people have already said, so apologies if a simple "+1" would have been better! 😄) -- GitHub Notification of comment by nickautomatic Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9041#issuecomment-2377538116 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2024 17:27:59 UTC