- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 22:35:26 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-flexbox][css-grid] Unifying grid-auto-flow and flex-flow`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Abandon grand item-flow theory in favor of smaller targeted unification attempts` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <sgill> TabAtkins: while ago the TAG asked us to try and merge some aspects of our display modes due to commonalities<br> <sgill> we came up with the item-flow proposal!<br> <sgill> have been iterating over them for a year now<br> <sgill> i think that experiment has proved to be a failure and we should reject the TAG feedback. properties should be layout mode specific<br> <sgill> mostly based on fact that during TPAC we tried to come up with good and intuitive names for the flow control properties<br> <sgill> could not come up with a way that majority of people liked/agreed<br> <sgill> when a 4th layout mode comes out i am not confident it will work well with this<br> <astearns> q+<br> <sgill> proposal to reject TAG feedback, stop trying to do item-flow, and open the possibility of having layout modes reuse when there are strong commonalities<br> <oriol> +1<br> <sgill> but no large generic block<br> <sgill> astearns: trying to be a bit more diplomatic. not rejecting entire TAG feedback. TAG did not ask to create item-flow<br> <sgill> should not preclude future attempts. but item-flow does not seem to have a future<br> <astearns> ack astearns<br> <sgill> TabAtkins: do not want to cut off any ideas of future development. just currently not planning on working on it<br> <sgill> fantasai: i think there were 2 core difficulties<br> <sgill> could not find names that were not too generic<br> <sgill> compat issues of incrementally shipping things<br> <sgill> TabAtkins: future ideas would need to be integrated and ship simultaneously among layout modes<br> <sgill> if there are separate properties there are not issues shipping things separately<br> <lea> q?<br> <lea> q+<br> <astearns> ack lea<br> <sgill> concrete example: tolerance. placement tolerance for masonry we have roughly a good idea how it would work for flexbox. but since we don't have it figured out we would need to do so before shipping grid lanes<br> <sgill> lea: mentioned ideas about trying to unify these, but can we record the concrete issues that ocurred?<br> <jensimmons> q+<br> <sgill> in general what seems to cause problems is indirection. is this horizontal? is this vertical?<br> <sgill> that is confusing even for existing flexbox<br> <sgill> like with the alignment properties<br> <sgill> even if we decide not to pursue this direction, it would be useful to document the issues<br> <sgill> TabAtkins: sure. we can provide a better summary into the issue<br> <sgill> leaverou: individual unification can still be useful<br> <sgill> fantasai: like we did for gaps<br> <astearns> ack jensimmons<br> <sgill> jensimmons: i think it makes sense to set aside item-flow<br> <sgill> webkit had a blog post and authors were intrigued, but they forgot about it<br> <sgill> as we moved onto gird lanes did not hear about item flow<br> <sgill> one thing that is good is putting together the table of interrelated ideas<br> <sgill> made it clear where there is possibility for innovation<br> <sgill> like the idea of continuing to pursue those ideas separately<br> <iank_> q?<br> <sgill> TabAtkins: agree exploring the matrix was helpful<br> <sgill> PROPOSAL: Abandon grand item-flow theory in favor of smaller targeted ideas<br> <sgill> RESOLVED: Abandon grand item-flow theory in favor of smaller targeted unification attempts<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11480#issuecomment-3820776942 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2026 22:35:27 UTC