[css-sizing-4] Do things with aspect ratio resolve percentages like replaced elements or non-replaced?

[bfgeek]

There are subtle differences between how replaced elements resolve %-block-sizes, and how non-replaced elements resolve.

Should clarify if they resolve based on their type (replaced, vs. non-replaced), or resolve like replaced.

[fantasai]

Spec link: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing-3/#intrinsic

[fantasai]

The other place that talks about replaced elements is this section in Grid: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-grid-1/#grid-item-sizing

[fantasai]

Another place that talks about replaced vs non-replaced is https://drafts.csswg.org/css-sizing-3/#percentage-sizing but it does not talk about aspect ratios except by deferring to the cyclic percentage definition linked earlier.

[fantasai]

Checked in a few changes:

• Cleaned up the references from Grid in 72f2bb2
• 21aa620 removes the reference to “replaced elements” in Sizing, but note that this should have no effect on anything, since afaik there's no case in which a non-replaced element’s max-content size depends on the size of its containing block.

[fantasai]

@bfgeek Are there other spec sections that you were concerned about (other than css-position, which needs general triage)?

[tabatkins]

(We did a grep over the repository, and every remaining reference to replaced elements appears to be intentionally talking about replaced elements, not "things with aspect ratios". But my grep might have been simplistic and missed stuff, dunno.)

[bfgeek]

So there is a super edge case within tables for WebKit/Blink/EdgeHTML which relies on this distinction, (and we believe it is required for webcompat).
https://www.software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?saved=8045

Basically in the above example replaced elements resolve their values, differently to non-replaced.

I think it should be fine to keep this as a replaced vs. non-replaced distiction, rather than has-ar vs. no-ar.