217817 - Sequence of 100% IFRAMEs or IMG causes only the first one to be displayed

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Core :: Layout: Tables, defect)

Description

[Philippe Bajoit]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030827 Mozilla Firebird/0.6.1+
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030827 Mozilla Firebird/0.6.1+

When using IFRAMEs without no element between them, ie
<IFRAME ...></IFRAME>
<IFRAME ...></IFRAME>
<IFRAME ...></IFRAME>

only the first one is displayed, the other seem to be located just under the
first one and not displayed. Simply adding an element eg <BR> is a workaround.

This is a regression in FB 0.6.1; it is working well with Phoenix 0.5.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Look at http://home.planetinternet.be/~pbajoit/lebutch/Mozilla/master.htm ,
only 1 IFRAME is visible
2. Look at the HTML, 3 are used,
3. Look at http://home.planetinternet.be/~pbajoit/lebutch/Mozilla/masterOK.htm ,
the 3 IFRAMEs are visible
4. Look at the HTML, the IFRAMEs are separated with <BR>
Actual Results:  
Only 1 IFRAME is displayed rather than all (3 in the example)

Expected Results:  
Display all IFRAMEs NOT on top of each other.

Comment 1

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Are all the nested tables necessary to reproduce this bug?  Or is it
reproducible with fewer levels of nesting, possibly without tables at all?

Seeing this in 1.5b SeaMonkey, so over to layout.

Comment 2

[Philippe Bajoit]

Actually the problems is related to TABLEs.
BODY containing just IFRAMEs works well.

Comment 3

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Right, but there are several levels of table nesting in the testcase.  Are they
all needed?

Put another way, how much HTML can you remove and still have the problem show up?

Comment 4

[Philippe Bajoit]

The test case is now better.

A simple TABLE is enough to reproduce.
Accurately, all these conditions are needed:
1. a TD of a TABLE
2. nothing between the IFRAMEs
3. IFRAME attribute FRAMEBORDER="0"
4. IFRAME attribute WIDTH="100%"

Comment 5

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

Attachment: Testcase

Same problem occurs using <img width=100%> in a table

Comment 6

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

Maybe this will be fixed by bug 173277?

-> Layout:Tables

Comment 7

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Ah, good point... shouldn't we be line-breaking between those iframes/images,
though?

Comment 8

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

Yes, we probably should, but I think we have a compatibility hack that makes us
keep <img> space <img> on the same line no matter what...
Not related to bug 173277.  I think I see what happens now, there is simply
no space left for the second image once the first has been sized to the full
width of the cell so it will be 100% of zero.

Comment 9

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

Attachment: Testcase #2 (using width=96%)

Comment 10

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Looks like bug 97695, then.  We should be sizing as percentage of containing
block, not available space...

Comment 11

[Philippe Bajoit]

Notice that on IFRAMEs
1. with WIDTH="100%"
2. without FRAMEBORDER="0"
the display is correct

Comment 12

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

This is probably dependent on bug 194804 too -- there seems to be an issue with
what tables do

Comment 13

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Fixed by checkin for bug 232754