Tess: I like it. The capability of using tha adder function... It a good addition to CSS. Solid spec work.

Rossen: Agree. I was there from the beginning. Quite comfortable.

Tess: We might be too close to be objective.

Tess: Some elements have an intrinsic aspect ratio. e.g. an image. some don't, eg. div. This property allows you to set an override. If you set an aspect ration then the set aspect ratio wins, if not then the intrinsic aspect ratio wins. Important for images for example. Other ways to do this are very tricky to use. This property slices through that - you can just set the ratio and you get that for free. This is useful not just in new layout systems. It's very helpful in normal flow layout. As far as syntax it's about as simple as it can be.

Dan: any inetraction issues?

Tess: when you over-specify - when you set a width and height and an aspect ratio then width and height win. It might be difficult where you're setting height and width in one stylesheet and aspect ratio somewhere else. That's the only one I can think of. Don't know the state of developer tools support.

Yves: syntax, is it the same as media query aspect ratio?

Rossen: I don't think so.

Yves: just at a syntax level to figure out if it's a ratio..

Tess: double-checking... Yes, it's the same CSS syntax.

Dan: suggest we set it to proposed closed and close it in the plenary.

Tess: sounds good.

Tess: they suggest that the form is too complex - should we have a lighter weight form for a straightforward thing like this?

[discussion on this]

Tess: this has been extensively vetted by layout experts.

Lea: Tess & I discussed at vf2f. Some issues with the explaienr but in terms of the CSS property we are happy. SO maybe we should close this?

Tess: more general meta issue with explainers coming from CSS. Not unique to this issue. Don't think it's worth delaying this issue on that bigger question.

Lea: should I close?

resolved to close