@RbnJrg - I assume you're referring to
this post?
If so, I had read it (and just reviewed the attached test files), but it's a bit different from what I'm talking about. Specifically, in your example you are setting image height and width to 100%, whereas I'm setting the width to "auto".
If you were referring to your first post, where you mentioned that using "width: auto" could make the width larger than 100%, I'm still confused as to why. Isn't auto supposed mean that it will use
available space? Is it that the 100% height has priority over the "auto" width? If so, why? Does height always have priority over width, or is the value-defined setting always prioritize over a competing "auto" setting (regardless of which is defining height and which is definining width)?
Moreover, as I said in my previous post, part of what's confusing me is that it renders differently between Sigil/PageEdit and Calibre. The distortion you describe in your recent example (again, because the code is slightly different) isn't really what I'm referring to (or at least, I don't
think it is...). In my example, Sigil/PageEdit
doesn't distort the image at all, it just refuses to resize if the window gets too narrow (which i think may be what you were referring to in your first post). Whereas in Calibre it doesn't stretch or scroll, but it
will compress when the window gets too narrow.
Separately, the issue of 100% height rendering as slightly more than 100% of the window height (resulting in a vertical scrollbar) is a little different than the commentary you've made regarding this setting (and its 99/97/95vh corollary). You seemed to be cautioning against these maximized height settings resulting in the insertion of blank space/pages. My issue is not with any blank space insertion (I didn't see any in either Sigil/PageEdit or Calibre), but rather that the 100% height renders as taller than 100% of the window/container height.