> I really don't like how disingenuous, propagandistic and patronising Simmons is being in this article. Ending each section saying "all this will be impossible if not done the way I like"
This is a very uncharitable way of reading this, and that's a polite way of describing this view.
She shows what is possible, and how existing grid mechanisms can be leveraged for masonry layout. It's implicit that coming up with a proposal outside the grid would need to accommodate the same capabilities somehow.
How is it patronising or disingenuous? They (and Firefox) literally implemented this and are showing what is possible. And are asking you for input. If you think you're incorrect, you can join and show them the error of their ways:
--- start quote ---
Our hope is that web designers and developers chime in (post to social media, write blog posts) with your thoughts about which direction CSS should take.
Some people, including those of us at Apple, like having “Masonry” be part of CSS Grid. We believe this functionality is a mechanism to expand CSS Grid — allowing it to finally create columnar grids as well as modular grids. And we want this functionality to be mixed with all the other features of Grid, including the powerful options for defining a columns, track spanning, explicit placement, and subgrid.
Other people instead believe Masonry should be its own separate display type. At first glance, defining Masonry with a new display type might make a lot of sense. You do get a tidy separation between layout types.
This is a very uncharitable way of reading this, and that's a polite way of describing this view.
She shows what is possible, and how existing grid mechanisms can be leveraged for masonry layout. It's implicit that coming up with a proposal outside the grid would need to accommodate the same capabilities somehow.
How is it patronising or disingenuous? They (and Firefox) literally implemented this and are showing what is possible. And are asking you for input. If you think you're incorrect, you can join and show them the error of their ways:
--- start quote ---
Our hope is that web designers and developers chime in (post to social media, write blog posts) with your thoughts about which direction CSS should take.
Some people, including those of us at Apple, like having “Masonry” be part of CSS Grid. We believe this functionality is a mechanism to expand CSS Grid — allowing it to finally create columnar grids as well as modular grids. And we want this functionality to be mixed with all the other features of Grid, including the powerful options for defining a columns, track spanning, explicit placement, and subgrid.
Other people instead believe Masonry should be its own separate display type. At first glance, defining Masonry with a new display type might make a lot of sense. You do get a tidy separation between layout types.
--- end quote ---