- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2025 16:17:19 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-grid-3][masonry] item-flow row vs. column in masonry layouts`. <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <Kurt> astearns: my take on the poll is we have 1 set of implementors for A and another for C, and web authors for B<br> <Kurt> fantasai: no one liked B2, no one's first choice<br> <Kurt> ...one set for C or B1, no one is only C<br> <florian> q+<br> <Kurt> astearns: not useful to go over arguments again, don't seem to have convinced anyone over the last few months<br> <Kurt> florian: while I was considering options, I arrived at option D, different compromise between B1 and A<br> <Kurt> ...look at what I wrote for option D and respond<br> <Kurt> fantasai: not a form of A, most fundamental is not which keywords, but the fact that column means waterfall and row is bricks<br> <Kurt> ...as long as you don't take interpretation of keywords, not the same<br> <Kurt> florian: I agree, D addresses some criticisms, not fundamental aspects. Should I describe here or push to GitHub?<br> <Kurt> ...fundamentally, it uses grid-overflow same as B1, but one criticism of B1 is if you don't want to reverse primary or secondary, you can set grid-template-columns and rely on normal doing the rigfht thing. If you want to reverse, you have to discover...<br> <Kurt> ...and primary is row-reverse and secondary is wrap-reverse...<br> <Kurt> ...what A has is a separate set of keywords for direction and a second for what or reversing<br> <Kurt> (syntax in issue)<br> <fantasai> grid-auto-flow: [ normal | row | column ] || fill-reverse || wrap-reverse || dense<br> <oriol> I think D is better than B1, but I still prefer A<br> <fantasai> Point being, can specify `grid-auto-flow: fill-reverse` to reverse the order without needing to use row or column.<br> <Kurt> ...upside is if you're set rows or columns ad are relying on normal value to do the right thing, if you want to reverse primary or secondary, you have keywords to do this. A does this and B doesn't. B way of reverting uses the word row or column.<br> <Kurt> astearns: considering the use of this property as something we don't expect authors to do much, we're adding reversing in both dimensions as a completeness thing. I do know there are some use cases that have been expressed, but they are very minor as far as I understand.<br> <TabAtkins> (denseness is something we don't expect to be *rare*, per se)<br> <Kurt> ...I'm wondering whether we should find out if there's an option we can live with and pick the least worst option and move on<br> <Kurt> Florian: that was my attempt with D. It's in the B1 bucket with one advantage of A, my attempt at "least worst"<br> <Kurt> alisonmaher: Seems worth getting more author feedback. Maybe get some implementations so authors can try both and decide.<br> <Kurt> astearns: We have some authors on the call<br> <Kurt> fantasai: We are missing a lot of authors in the call<br> <Kurt> ...I agree with allowing both to play with, but we need some more people to weigh in because we're split<br> <Kurt> astearns: move on?<br> <TabAtkins> (of the "authors", aka "not people employed by primary implementors", it's 2:3 i think)<br> <Kurt> florian: suggests we include D in poll<br> <Kurt> jensimmons: Do you think it's a D or a B3?<br> <Kurt> florian: no one wants B2, I'm hopefully the people who prefer B1 or C, there might be a preference for D. It's a type of B1, but don't want to split. Is it a better B1, shouldn't split D camp.<br> <Kurt> fantasai: OR is possible<br> <Kurt> florian: Just like C is also somewhat B1, D is also in the B1 camp<br> <Kurt> fantasai: it's not B1<br> <Kurt> florian: we call it D because it's not the same as flex<br> <Kurt> astearns: is there anyone who hasn't spoken up who wants to weigh in?<br> <Kurt> ...let's take it back to GitHub and see what kind of progress we can make<br> <Kurt> ...let's discuss adding D in the issue about how we are going to get more feedback from authors<br> <Kurt> ...we can work on what options we're going to present when we know who we're going to present to and how we're going to get feedback. Let's move on.<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12803#issuecomment-3666104878 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 17 December 2025 16:17:20 UTC