The proposal sounds good and simple enough for me! It sounds more straightforward than row and column, even though these definitely ring a bell due to being values for flex or grid containers. I also appreciate the reduced verbosity of not having to write orientation all the time!

Should we then assume that every component is going to render horizontally unless vertical is added?

I guess not. It should depend on the common layout of the component. For example:

• List is usually vertical by default, so it needs horizontal prop to change the flow.
• Tabs is usually horizontal by default, so it needs vertical prop to change the flow.

<List horizontal>
<Tabs vertical>

Ah, yes. That makes total sense. I'm definitely in for horizontal and vertical 👌

What if some one send both props by mistake?

What if some one send both props by mistake?

That's not possible. Each component receives either vertical or horizontal. For example, List receives only horizontal

<List horizontal>...</List>

@siriwatknp Would it be possible to update the initial description to have an improved benchmark of all the existing different prop and prop types used for this :)?

What I think we could improve in the description: 1. have a single list, there are two lists 2. Cover the Divider, 3. Stack is mentioned twice

updated.

Thanks! And I did another pass

Why not skip direction and orientation altogether and just go with a boolean horizontal or vertical? As @siriwatknp was explaining, some components will render with one or the other by default and in those that are horizontal, for example, by default, there would be a vertical prop, and vice-versa.

The cons I see:

1. Developers have to try both props to figure out the one that works. Or maybe developers won't try horizontal/vertical but row/column.
2. horizontal and vertical can't replace direction. The direction prop often have 4 values
3. We have taught most developers about direction and orientation so far, so have other libraries. The minimum path of resistance to maximize consistency seems to replace the row prop with the orientation.
4. An orientation is in theory not binary, there are 90 degrees to consider (for a direction: 360 degrees)

Developers have to try both props to figure out the one that works. Or maybe developers won't try horizontal/vertical but row/column.

Either way, developers need to remember how to use it anyway. Let's compare the 2 given all components are consistent. The difference between orientation=".." and vertical/horizontal is the number of characters to type (8 vs 20). If you use IDE autocomplete, you need 2 tabs instead of 1.

horizontal and vertical can't replace direction. The direction prop often have 4 values

Correct, I have no objection to the direction prop. My point is the orientation prop that has 2 values.

We have taught most developers about direction and orientation so far, so have other libraries. The minimum path of resistance to maximize consistency seems to replace the row prop with the orientation.

Yes, we should consider this point. changing from row to orientation might benefit developers the most.

An orientation is in theory not binary, there are 90 degrees to consider (for a direction: 360 degrees)

But in practice, there are only 2 choices.

I guess Joy will follow Material UI for now and once we have the decision, let's break both of them and create a codemod.

That sounds reasonable!