Closed
Bug 241915
Opened 22 years ago
Closed 22 years ago
Style sheet not rendered
Categories
(Core :: Layout, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
INVALID
People
(Reporter: richy, Unassigned)
References
()
Details
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7b) Gecko/20040421
After installing 1.7 beta I noticed that style sheets on the PHP PEAR website
weren't taking effect. I upgraded to RC1 the other day and the same problem was
still there. I did some checking with the PEARWEB people and discovered that
this was specific to the 1.7 release (checked the same pages in Firefox, IE, etc
and they were fine). In 1.7 this resulted in tiny font sizes on the pages of the
site and incorrect coloring of the links, which appeared blue instead of green,
leading me to beleive that none of the styles were being applied. I did some
testing to see if the problem was in the style sheet itself by over-riding the
PEAR style sheet with one of my own via the userContent.css file (just saved the
PEAR CSS stylesheet to that file), after doing so the pages appeared fine. I
tried to revert back to the former state by deleting the custom CSS file, then I
dumped the cache, and was not able to reproduce the problem. Not entirely sure
on the validity of the bug, but thought none-the-less that it was worth
reporting since it seemed a bug in Moz 1.7 and not in the site.
Reproducible: Couldn't Reproduce
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Actual Results:
After a fresh install of 1.7 beta or 1.7 RC 1, the styles on this particular
site didn't take effect.
Its important to note that I haven't seen similar problems on other websites, as
I have been using 1.7 quite extensively, just on the PEAR site. The differences
in rendering are most noticable when viewing a package or package statistics,
the links are tiny.
Comment 1•22 years ago
|
||
WFM, same browser, same os.
Comment 2•22 years ago
|
||
Please clear the cache and try it again.
Assignee: dbaron → nobody
Component: Style System (CSS) → Layout
QA Contact: ian → core.layout
Comment 3•22 years ago
|
||
I believe I have ecountered the same bug when coding my own pages.
Using Mozilla 1.7 RC3 and WinXP
I have seen the stylesheet not being applied when the CSS file is located in a
subdirectory relative to the webpage. Here I'll try to show you:
Top level:
Framed HTML doc
Frame Source #1
Frame Source #2
CSS for frame one
Second level (fav):
Additional Frame Source #2
CSS for frame two
All documents in the top level render with no porblem. The second level is
being rendered without CSS.
I have reproduced this.
I have found a work around to render second level. I've changed the path in the
<link> tag to match the <link> tag in the top level frame source. Problem is
that's incorrect, there is no such directory in the second level and the page
fails to render in other browsers. The original path in the second level reads
like "theme.css" but will only work if it reads "second/theme.css" and there is
no subdirectory in the second level. It appears as if the path in the <link>
tag must be relative the the Frame HTML doc instead of the doc which uses the
CSS file.
Full link tag <link href="bookmarks.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" />
instead this works:
<link href="fav/bookmarks.css" type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" />
Problem is you can't use the name of the subdirectory in a file located there
or the browser looks for a third level where there is none.
Not quite certain if this what was originaly reported as there wasn't much
detail in the original post. The webpage I coded renders without problem in IE
6.0 SP1 and in Opera 7.5
Comment 4•22 years ago
|
||
DarkWolf, unless you're sure your problem is the same as the problem reported,
you should file a new bug.
This WFM on Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.3)
Gecko/20040925 Firefox/0.10. Richard, are you still seeing this?
| Reporter | ||
Comment 5•22 years ago
|
||
> Richard, are you still seeing this?
No, I'm sure not. I'm convinced it was just a fluke. I was never able to
reproduce the bug. I suggest marking INVALID.
Comment 6•22 years ago
|
||
Suggestion noted.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 22 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•