W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2016

Re: [css-sizing] min-content for replaced elements with an aspect ratio

From: Manuel Rego Casasnovas <rego@igalia.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2016 15:09:32 +0100
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <56AB729C.5020805@igalia.com>

On 27/01/16 18:48, Christian Biesinger wrote:
> Looking at Flexbox testcases I was wondering what the min-content size
> should be for a case like:
> <img style="width: min-content; height: 100px;" size="image-60x60.gif">
> Should width end up at 60px because the image is 60px wide, or should
> the min-content width take the aspect ratio into account and produce
> 100px?
> https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing-3/#replaced-intrinsic says:
> "For replaced elements, the min-content size and max-content size are
> equivalent and correspond to the appropriate dimension of the concrete
> object size returned by the default sizing algorithm [CSS3-IMAGES] of
> the element, calculated with an unconstrained specified size."
> Note "unconstrained specified size"

Yeah, we got confused by that last part of the sentence. We somehow
ignore it. So, the tests in the W3C are wrong as they were based on a
wrong assumption.

Received on Friday, 29 January 2016 14:10:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:00 UTC