I was highlighting in these tests the difference between `content-intrinsic-size`+`aspect-ratio` and `img[width][height]`+`width:100%;height:auto`. In other words, the difference between an explicit intrinsic size/aspect ratio and implicit intrinsic size/aspect ratio of a native replaced element. In layman's terms I don't see why these two cases should be so different. And I also dislike that conceptually the `min-height: auto` takes precedence over the explicitly specified `aspect-ratio`. That being said, I understand that there might be some in-depth differences between replaced and non-replaced elements that justify the two issues are mentioned above. And as you mention, the fix is quite simple. Thus I don't feel very strongly that this must be resolved the way I describe. But for posterity, it might be good to clarify replaced-vs-non-replaced differences here. -- GitHub Notification of comment by dvoytenko Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5537#issuecomment-701620658 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-configReceived on Wednesday, 30 September 2020 20:15:41 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:17 UTC