- From: Brad Kemper via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 20:52:54 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
CSS > I feel like the proposed grid-auto-flow syntax in B1 and B2 suffers from the same problem and further adds to the cognitive load that authors already experience. I'm an author, and I feel oppositely. The word "flow" in CSS has always referred to the ordered way items are added to the layout, and not to the visual effect that creates. When items are taken out of flow, they are taken out of the location where they would have been added in their natural order. A1 and B2 seem to be trying to redefine what flow means for just this one display value, and that means I have to remember how it is different. If you tell me it has a vertical flow, that sounds more like multi-column. To me, grid-lanes is essentially a system in which items are still laid out in a grid, but then compacted in one dimension (and thus no longer able to be aligned along one of their axes). So if you are going to change the meaning of flow (and align and justify? But not `order`?) for this layout, then that adds a lot to my cognitive load. If we are going to so drastically move away from what flowing means to grid, then it shouldn’t use the word “grid” in its name, nor use the word “flow” in relation to the visual effect of lanes. And if `align-items` now relates to how it aligns to the lane instead of the real item placement flow, then it should be called `lane-align-items` instead. But it would be much less of a cognitive burden to not change so much of what these words mean, and keep them meaning the same thing they meant with grid. -- GitHub Notification of comment by bradkemper Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12803#issuecomment-3761774470 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 16 January 2026 20:52:55 UTC