Re: [css-flexbox] min-height on flex items that have an intrinsic aspect ratio

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
wrote:
>
> I prefer the pre-August behavior on this point, because min-content sizes
> aren't really a useful lower-bound for flex items with aspect ratios. These
> flex items *can* shrink (honoring their intrinsic aspect ratio) below their
> min-content size, without overflowing.
>

This makes a lot of sense to me, and I think the example is quite
compelling. Given an <img> flex item whose only CSS declaration is `flex: 0
0 50px`, it seems quite strange (and unexpected) to have its rendered size
be 300px wide/tall.