Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-grid-3][masonry] Masonry Syntax Debate (#11243)

The template properties weren't part of the item-* set because they didn't seem quite layout-agnostic. Flexbox doesn't have such a notion, for example, and even if it does grow one (to help support balancing), there's no guarantee it will look similar to the grid/masonry properties. 

There are also additional concept they mix in, like grid-template-areas, which also aren't necessarily useful across all layout modes. Shorthands, also, lean toward wanting to be specific to the layout mode. (I've argued strongly for this; that `grid-template` and `grid`, while fine for Grid, are *terrible* for Masonry.)

>  in a masonry layout mode, what would happen if I tried to set the template for the cross axis? For example...

It's ignored. The template and placement properties only work if they're in the grid axis of the masonry.

While there are some arguable downsides to this (as you point out, I've given those arguments before), there's also benefits, in that the sizing axis isn't indirected thru another property, which requires you to think about what axis you're specifying. For example, I think on balance it was a mistake to have `flex-basis` (we should have just used `width`/`height`) and to have the justify/align properties on Flexbox pay attention to main/cross axis (they should just be inline/block axis, like in all other layout modes). I think that it's often easier for authors if properties use a consistent axis (at least, consistent within a language, like the logical directions; authors rarely mix language directions on a page so it doesn't usually require extra thought).

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11243#issuecomment-2655162869 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Thursday, 13 February 2025 00:34:50 UTC