Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-sizing] clarification around Compressible Replaced Elements and min-content size (#5665)

> The fact that compat apparently ties us to that interpretation is a nice bonus. ^_^

Compat does agree with that interpretation for input elements, but not images.

E.g. The pass condition in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=9201228 (as reported in https://crbug.com/1174924) is consistent with the current spec but not with any engine until Firefox 86 (current stable release).

On top of the unknown compat story for images, I foresee this rule as causing confusion. In these two cases the only difference is the image having fixed width vs percent width that resolve to the same thing, which I suspect authors would lead to identical layouts. But according to the spec and Firefox 86, these layouts are different.

https://jsfiddle.net/dgrogan/1a06xyjw/1/

```html
<div style="display: flex; width: 100px;">
  <img src="//placekitten.com/100" style="width:100%;">
  <div style="width:100px"></div>
</div>
```
```html 
<div style="display: flex; width: 100px;">
  <img src="//placekitten.com/100" style="width:100px;">
  <div style="width:100px"></div>
</div>
```

This gets back to my questions in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5665#issuecomment-742066670, with respect to images, not form controls: Why are we copying table's weirdness in one situation to flexbox in a different situation? What's the benefit to web devs here?

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by davidsgrogan
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5665#issuecomment-791673203 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Friday, 5 March 2021 20:36:52 UTC