Closed
Bug 94468
Opened 23 years ago
Closed 21 years ago
Bad offset for "position:absolute" DIV when "top" missing
Categories
(Core :: Layout: Positioned, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
Future
People
(Reporter: h.leininger, Unassigned)
References
()
Details
(Keywords: testcase, Whiteboard: [awd:tbl])
Attachments
(2 files, 2 obsolete files)
499 bytes,
text/html
|
Details | |
2.70 KB,
patch
|
roc
:
review+
roc
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.3) Gecko/20010807 BuildID: 2001080721 The layout of a 3-columns table is computed by Javascript. In Mozilla, the contents of col 2 and 3 are shown one beyond the other whereas in Internet Explorer they are shown side by side. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. http://derstandard.at 2. compare with IE 3. Actual Results: wron screen layout Expected Results: should show like IE
Comment 1•23 years ago
|
||
Yep. turning off JS makes the page display fine. The page lays out ok, then the middle content drops down.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Comment 2•23 years ago
|
||
Comment 3•23 years ago
|
||
The problem is an absolute positioned element without a specified "top" property.
Assignee: asa → karnaze
Component: Browser-General → Layout
Keywords: testcase
QA Contact: doronr → petersen
Updated•23 years ago
|
Summary: Wrong appearance of table (layout computed by Javascript) → Bad offset for "position:absolute" DIV when "top" missing
Comment 4•23 years ago
|
||
either an dupe of 72806 or 86310 or 83684, take your pick
Comment 5•23 years ago
|
||
Yes, another dupe of my bug 72806. (Others are: 85545, 91514, 96552) But: With build 2001082303 on win2k the page looks fine today! Reporter: Can you please confirm and set this bug to WORKSFORME if possible?
Comment 6•23 years ago
|
||
CC'ing Christoph, the responsible webmaster - he might be interested in the explanation and the testcase.
Comment 7•23 years ago
|
||
IMO, this is a bug and should not be Evangelized. Compare the testcase with IE5 and Opera5. It is unreasonable that a missing "top" or "top:auto" means that the y-position of the box is below the *following* element.
Keywords: 4xp
Comment 9•23 years ago
|
||
hi, we changed the code of our website, due more traffic with mozilla buid browsers. but i uploaded a mirror of the old site. have made a test site: http://derstandard.at/dyn/coop/standard.html plz change the url. tried this also on the mac build. there is the same. and i think bug 85545 and bug 72806 are duplicates.
Comment 10•23 years ago
|
||
hmm, the rendering i get on IE doesnt look right either.
Whiteboard: [awd:tbl]
Comment 11•23 years ago
|
||
Temporarily moving to future until a milestone can be assigned.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Target Milestone: --- → Future
Comment 12•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 195051 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 13•21 years ago
|
||
The relevant code seems to be http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/layout/html/base/src/nsHTMLReflowState.cpp#871 : 871 // The element would have been block-level which means it would be below 872 // the line containing the placeholder frame 873 if (lineBox != blockFrame->end_lines()) { 874 // The top of the hypothetical box is just below the line containing 875 // the placeholder 876 aHypotheticalBox.mTop = lineBox->mBounds.YMost(); 877 } This is correct if the placeholder is somewhere in the middle of the line... but in the testcases in this bug, I think the placeholder is becoming the first frame (or nth frame if there are multiple placeholders) in a line that would have come _after_ the block. Do we want to try to put the placeholders in a separate line in this situation? Or do we want to adjust this logic to look at the frames in lineBox that come before aPlaceHolderFrame and use the _top_ of the line box in cases when all those are placeholders?
Assignee: karnaze → position
Status: ASSIGNED → NEW
Component: Layout → Layout: R & A Pos
Keywords: qawanted
QA Contact: petersen → ian
Comment 14•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 199873 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 15•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 204207 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 16•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 204719 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 17•21 years ago
|
||
okay. seems that there is an time problem. i set up bug: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204719 yesterday. this is another bug. the old one depends really on html. not so much on js. the new bug is only a bug of document.write and a buffer that seems to be too small, or do not get bigger at needed time or so. so i dont think, that the other is a duplicate. the site had many changes in this time. i would really appreciate that the other bug is reopened. (i postet this message in both bugs)
Comment 18•21 years ago
|
||
ähm... is this bug actual? or can we just close this bug? no activity....
Comment 19•21 years ago
|
||
With version 1.4.1 it occured again ocasionally and unpredictably.
Comment 20•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 21•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 132387 [details] [diff] [review] Possible patch David, what do you think?
Attachment #132387 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #132387 -
Flags: review?(dbaron)
Updated•21 years ago
|
Attachment #132387 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #132387 -
Flags: review?(dbaron)
Updated•21 years ago
|
Attachment #132435 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #132435 -
Flags: review?(dbaron)
Updated•21 years ago
|
Attachment #132435 -
Flags: superreview?(dbaron)
Attachment #132435 -
Flags: review?(dbaron)
Comment 23•21 years ago
|
||
Attachment #132435 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Updated•21 years ago
|
Attachment #133549 -
Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #133549 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Comment on attachment 133549 [details] [diff] [review] One more tweak.... Looks good.
Attachment #133549 -
Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #133549 -
Flags: superreview+
Attachment #133549 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #133549 -
Flags: review+
Comment 25•21 years ago
|
||
fix and testcase checked in.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 21 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 26•20 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 233433 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•