- From: fantasai via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 21:29:12 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I just want to summarize the argument against using `masonry` here: - It's jargon. We've been discussing it so long, we've probably forgotten that its name comes from a JS library and that it is both not universally understood as a thing nor even a common English word. It's a cool name for a library, but it's a brand name more than a descriptive name. - It's an analogy, not a description. For example, why not call it `display: waterfall`? It's a much clearer metaphor, actually -- for one thing it goes in the correct direction by default, and for another it's a common English word that's easily understandable to children and foreigners. But we don't tend to name things in CSS after things in the real-world that evoke the CSS layout effect, but rather try to find simple words that are directly descriptive of what we're trying to do. Hence `gap`, for example, rather than `gutter` (even despite `gutter` being standard typographic jargon). -- GitHub Notification of comment by fantasai Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12022#issuecomment-3417296223 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 17 October 2025 21:29:13 UTC