On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 11:18:04 -0500, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > <table width="400" border=1> > <tr> > <td style="width: 80%"></td> > <td style="width: 20%"> > <img style="width: 100%" > src="https://www.mozilla.org/images/header_logo.gif";> > </td> > </tr> > </table> > > On trunk, the image ends up about 80px wide. On reflow branch, it ends > up at its intrinsic width. > > For some form controls that had similar issues I duplicated the hack > from bug 40596 -- set intrinsic min width to 0 if the style width is not > auto. Is that what we want to be doing here for images?
I thought intrinsic width was only used in the 'auto' case? When you explicitly set the width on a block-level replaced element in such a fashion, does that not imply that any intrinsic width has thus been overridden and will be ignored? In my (very limited) understanding of CSS, I would have expected such, and wouldn't have interpreted it as over-constrained myself. I would expect the width of the image to be scaled up or down to 80px, and barring other constraints, I would also then expect the intrinsic min/pref height of the image to be set based on the 80px used width, scaled by the intrinsic ratio. What am I missing? -- Chris Hubick mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.hubick.com/ _______________________________________________ dev-tech-layout mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-tech-layout
![https://www.mozilla.org/images/header_logo.gif"](https://www.mozilla.org/images/header_logo.gif"){kind=link}