- From: Daniel Holbert via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2022 18:15:31 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
[retracting my "things make sense" comment] So per @bfgeek 's example and comments, it sounds like the min-content size of an element with `aspect-ratio` and an opposite-axis size is defined by the aspect-ratio and the specified-size in the opposite axis (which corrects my misunderstanding in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6794#issuecomment-1027471017 ). So, my confusion from https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6794#issuecomment-1027455922 remains -- I'm not sure I agree with @tabatkins that the automatic minimum height of the flex item would be zero in Tab's analysis in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6794#issuecomment-1026183636 . I would think it should be the min-content size which would come from the apsect-ratio and the automatic minimum size. -- GitHub Notification of comment by dholbert Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6794#issuecomment-1028220423 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 2 February 2022 18:15:33 UTC