my thoughts exactly - i think this points to a possible naming issue, since "masonry" is a relatively vague alias that does not really describe the underlying layouting logic, it just became ubiquitous enough for people building webstuff to understand because of that one jQuery plugin back in the days.

A better approach might be to lean on the "grid" naming, but still silo it off via an own display directive (a bit like "block" and "inline-block" have shared properties, but also mutually exclusive behaviours)

So maybe an own `display: flex-grid;` could be an interesting solution?

This separate layout mode would avoid "result-specific" nomenclature like "masonry", and could lean on both flexbox & grid to achieve that look: - using `grid-auto-flow` to set a "masonry axis" & distribution logic - using _either_ `grid-template-columns` or `grid-template-rows` to specify the "lanes" - and to make my frankensteinian display-mashup even worse (or genius! for you to decide), the grid items could in turn abuse `flex-grow, flex-shrink, flex-basis` to control their height/width within the main "masonry" axis