W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > October 2020

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-sizing-4] Should contain-intrinsic-size be used for min-height: auto? (#5537)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2020 23:04:48 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-703935126-1601939087-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The two cases are different because c-i-s doesn't have anything to do with replaced elements. ^_^ c-i-s lets us skip actually doing the rendering work for an element's contents, and instead pretend that work had already been done and resulted in the content having the specified c-i-s size. So, it should be acting exactly like there was normal content in there of an appropriate size, and what you're seeing is exactly the behavior you'd get out of that: `min-height:auto` defaults to the min-content height (which is the full laid-out height), trying to avoid an accidental overflow situation.

I suspect the confusion here is that “intrinsic size” is commonly used to describe replaced elements, and not commonly used to describe normal elements, causing you to draw stronger parallels than actually exist. Hopefully this discussion has cleared things up now. I'm going to assume that your previous response means you're okay with us closing no change here, since specifying `min-height: 0` does gives you the desired behavior.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5537#issuecomment-703935126 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 5 October 2020 23:04:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:20 UTC