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

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

From: Dima Voytenko via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 20:15:39 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-701620658-1601496937-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
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-config
Received 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