- From: nightpool via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 13:33:30 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
While I understand that the spec text in this are is probably most correctly interpreted as returning 250, I think that's a really regrettable result, and as an author, I find Firefox's behavior a lot more intuitive and useful then Chrome's in this area. Ultimately, if I'm using an image (or another sort of replaced element) in a flexbox, it's almost certain that I want a responsive behavior, rather then being too concerned with the original inherent size of the image. Another concern is that, since flex-shrink is enabled by default, I would expect images to shrink along with other elements, so the use of min-width here seems to me to be inappropriate. Additionally, the fact that these two documents below render differently is VERY surprising to me, and as an author I would prefer a solution that provided consistency in this area: ```html <div style="display: flex; width: 300px;"> <!-- These imgs overflow their container --> <img src="https://placekitten.com/300/480"> <img src="https://placekitten.com/300/480"> </div> ``` ```html <div style="display: flex; width: 300px;"> <!-- These don't --> <div><img src="https://placekitten.com/300/480"></div> <div><img src="https://placekitten.com/300/480"></div> </div> ``` -- GitHub Notification of comment by nightpool Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5347#issuecomment-670518964 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 7 August 2020 13:33:33 UTC