Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-grid-3] Masonry Switch Syntax (#12022)

> I don't see the appeal of lanes/tracks. Grid layout also has lanes/tracks (in both axes), so I don't see how using lanes/tracks would somehow imply that it's just in one axis.

A grid does indeed have tracks, in both axes: it's the tracks crossing each other that create a grid. (See also "gridlocked" traffic...)

But if we say `display: tracks` (or `lanes`), I think the implication would be that we have a set of tracks into which items flow, like lanes of traffic, _without_ being gridlocked. So we're thinking of tracks/lanes in a single dimension, not criss-crossed to create a grid.

(I suggested `tracks` above because the term is familiar from the specs, but would also be ok with `lanes`.)

> > Why not drop the grid (pre or suffix)
> 
> Some members of the CSSWG said they would raise a formal objection

I wonder if they might be prepared to reconsider that. IMO `display: lanes` or `display: tracks` is better without including the term `grid`, because a grid involves tracks in both axes, which is exactly what this mode does _not_ have.


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by jfkthame
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12022#issuecomment-3442511699 using your GitHub account


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

Received on Friday, 24 October 2025 10:58:14 UTC