[css-contain] Unclear what contain:size does for replaced elements

[tabatkins]

In the spirit of what it does for non-replaced elements (treat as having no contents, so it'll shrink to zero in most layouts), a replaced element should act like it has no intrinsic dimensions either.

[frivoal]

Sounds good to me. Just be careful in the phrasing to scope this “act like it has no intrinsic dimensions” thing to size calculations only. We don't want to imply that intrinsic dimensions should stop mattering for other things, such as object-fit for example.

[frivoal]

Also, I don't think it should get rid of intrinsic aspect ratios.

[fantasai]

On 09/05/2016 12:57 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:

Also, I don't think it should get rid of intrinsic aspect ratios.

Then it would require loading and analyzing the contents.
At which point it may as well have its intrinsic width and height, too.

~fantasai

[frivoal]

Yes, I suppose it was late when I wrote that.

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed css-contain, and agreed to the following resolutions:

RESOLVED: size as if intrinsic size was zero and no aspect ratio

The full IRC log of that discussion

<astearns> topic: css-contain
<fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai
<fantasai> Florian: Have a FPWD of css-contain that is well overdue, thus close to CR
<Florian> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/382
<fantasai> Florian: Have some issues, let's close them
<fantasai> Github topic: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/382
<fantasai> Florian: If you 'contain: size' on a replaced element, what should that mean?
<fantasai> dbaron: You get whatever size specified, otherwise zero
<fantasai> RESOLVED: size as if intrinsic size was zero and no aspect ratio
<Florian> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/404
<fantasai> Github topic: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/404
<fantasai> Github topic: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/382