- From: Oriol Brufau via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 11:46:22 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
"undefined in CSS 2" is all over the place in the CSS 2 spec when it doesn't mandate what browsers are supposed to do. So it doesn't mean that the used width is a special `undefined` value, it still needs to be a length, it's just not defined how this length is produced. > is actually intended to fall under this fallback clause, or if it is treated separately It's undefined, so browsers can do whatever they want (according to CSS2, not to CSS Sizing). > In particular, neither Chrome nor Firefox appear to follow this fallback behavior when rendering the following code: Note `aspect-ratio` isn't in CSS2. But anyways your `img` isn't replaced and has `display: inline`, better try with `display: block`. Or `<svg viewbox="0 0 1 1" style="background-color: blue">`. Both should follow the suggestion (but again, CSS2 doesn't mandate that). > is pointless and confusing especially if this case never actually occurs in practice. It occurs. But CSS2 has been superseded so if you want to talk "in practice" then not sure how much relevant all of this is. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12254#issuecomment-2930263076 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 2 June 2025 11:46:23 UTC