Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-grid-3][masonry] Longhand shorthand relationships of item-flow (#12804)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-grid-3][masonry] Longhand shorthand relationships of item-flow`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: Go with option 2`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;kbabbitt> astearns: on this one, you said option 2<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... I thought I heard you say that option 2 did not have problem of flex-flow affecting masonry layout but it seems like it does to me<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> fantasai: it doesn't<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> TabAtkins: in option 2, individual layout modes have their respective properties<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... we just have a shorthand for them<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... you could read auto-flow but it doesn't transfer over<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> astearns: it's a little weird to have a shorthand when you could set grid and flex separately and have only one apply<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> fantasai: not sure I follow, item-flow sets both<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> florian: but you can't use the shorthand to set grid to one and flex to the other<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> TabAtkins: astearns wasn't asking for that, said it would be confusing if you could<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> fantasai: could design that but would need to be pretty explicit about it<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... [writes syntax for it on the slide]<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... could consider what happens if you set both independently, not expecting use of this double syntax<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> florian: not convinced we're starting from scratch introducing things<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... but we do have them, flex properties don't affect grid, just aliasing everything seems undesirable to impossible<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... option 2 has weirdness but others seem worse<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> I like option 2 as long as we can it through ^_^<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> astearns: anyone want to argue against option 2 or suggest alternatives?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... shall we resolve on option 2?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> astearns: given that preference from both fantasai and TabAtkins and not hearing any opposition, proposed resolution is to go with option 2<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... objections?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> RESOLVED: Go with option 2<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> fantasai: there's only one detail here, if we want item-flow to be able to set different values ...<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> astearns: let's make a note and only get to it if we have to<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> fantasai: i can't imagine anyone wanting to set it, but if an author sets flex-flow one way and grid-auto-flow the other way, what do we return for the shorthand?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> ... not a representative value<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> TabAtkins: seems fine to me<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> astearns: an alternative would be to preference one or other<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> play stupid games, win stupid prizes<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> miriam: is that not normal or auto?<br>
&lt;kbabbitt> florian: no because if you set it to normal, that would do the weird thing where they disagree<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> item-flow:abnormal<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12804#issuecomment-3433312325 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Wednesday, 22 October 2025 16:50:24 UTC