- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 18:37:43 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
On first glance, I agree with @fantasai; c-i-s is meant to provide an intrinsic size, and min-height:auto pays attention to the intrinsic size, so it seems like they should work together. Is there a reason we shoudln't do this? All I see here are some abstract test cases, with no reasoning given for why it should act one way or the other. If there's a compelling case to be made for letting ratio-dependent elements shrink below their c-i-s *by default* (and which somehow doesn't apply to a replaced element's "actual" intrinsic size), we can consider it; in the absence of that, tho, we *have* a generic switch you can toggle to get this behavior already (set `min-height:0`) which applies in a bunch more similar cases anyway. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5537#issuecomment-701570351 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 30 September 2020 18:37:45 UTC