102955 - thewb.com - Image layout problem at www.thewb.com

Status: VERIFIED FIXED

(Tech Evangelism Graveyard :: English US, defect)

Description

[Chris Petersen]

Build: 2001-10-03-04
Platform: All
Expected Results: Images in table should be flush
What I got: Portions of images are missing or appear tiled on top of each other

Steps to reproduce:

1) Go to url

2) Notice images in center of page are partially missing or position is incorrect.

3) If you look at the page source of the page, you should see a XHTML strict
DTD. I don't believe this page is rendered via our XML parser. If you save the
page as XML, you get a parser error since the document is not well-formed. So
based on this, I think the page is render as HTML strict (standards). If you
remove the doctype, the page will in quirks mode. In Quirks, the layout is correct. 
3)

Comment 1

[Brian Nesse (gone)]

Yikes! This seems to be getting worse. With recent builds (including branch
builds) this site is almost unusable. Images on top of other images. Images that
are only partially drawn. Screen shot from mac coming (PC looks even worse).

Do we really want to ship 6.2 like this??

Comment 2

[Brian Nesse (gone)]

Attachment: Screen shot

Comment 3

[Brian Nesse (gone)]

Attachment: 4.x Comparison screen

Comment 4

[Jaime Rodriguez, Jr.]

Nominating per brian's comments. Let's discuss this at today's PDT.

Comment 5

[Jaime Rodriguez, Jr.]

Do we know how 6.2 performs (i.e. is this a regression)?

Comment 6

[Jaime Rodriguez, Jr.]

doh! i meant Netscape 6.1.

Comment 7

[Brian Nesse (gone)]

Chris (P), based on your comments, do you feel that this is a program bug or an
evangelism issue?

Comment 8

[sol]

I tried this with 6.1 RTM on Win98. Looks the same ... not so good layout.

Comment 9

[lchiang]

Is Quirks mode the default?  Petersen says quirks mode, the layout is ok.

Comment 10

[Brian Nesse (gone)]

I think Quirks mode was defaulted to off a month or so ago.

Comment 11

[Arun Ranganathan]

6.1 (0.9.2) doesn't do a great job on the site, but 0.9.4 based "commercial"
builds do an even worse job. The jury's out still on whether this is a regression.
The W3C validator throws many errors validating this page against the given
doctype.  Removing the doctype (thus making it transitional and "quirks" mode)
causes the page to render correctly (using a base href so that I could toggle
the doctype).
I can evangelize these guys if the need be. Are we convinced in house that this
isn't a product bug?  I'm CC'ing Bob Clary.

Comment 12

[Jaime Rodriguez, Jr.]

PDT-, This is an evangelism issue. ---> aruner.

Comment 13

[Marc Attinasi]

Attachment: Testcase: reduced to show the image problems (strict doctype)

Comment 14

[Marc Attinasi]

The image problem may be a legit standards mode bug - will investigate and
update info here.

Comment 15

[Chris Petersen]

I believe most of the pages on this site have this problem. They have a XHTML
Strict doctype. Changing to XHTML Transitional DTD will still invoke standards
mode. The way to solve is to make the DOCTYPE HTML Transitional 4.0.1 without url.

Comment 16

[Chris Petersen]

Even though the page has XHTML doctype, It isn't being served as XML from their
server. If it was, our XML parser would have caught the various errors in the xhtml.

Comment 17

[Bob Clary [:bc] (inactive)]

taking
clearing [PDT-] from whiteboard, nsbranch from keywords, resetting milestone

Comment 18

[Bob Clary [:bc] (inactive)]

http://bugscape.netscape.com/show_bug.cgi?id=10724

Comment 19

[Eric A. Meyer (dead account)]

*** Bug 105505 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 20

[Eric A. Meyer (dead account)]

Arun and I were talking about this bug and something bothers me.  In terms of
standards/quirks mode, we're looking at the DOCTYPE and stopping there.  This
leads to situations like we have in this bug: authors claim that their document
is fit for standards mode when it isn't.  It might be a Good Thing if we could
check to see if a document's contents are valid under the given DOCTYPE.  This
would give us a better handle on which mode should be used, and clear up a lot
of erroneous "Netscape broke my site" bugs.  Any chance of doing this in a
compact fashion?

Comment 21

[rubydoo123]

But that is the purpose of the doctype. It tells the UA, as directed by the 
author, that the page contents are valid in respect to the doctype. It seems to 
me that the time it would take to analyze and compare the content against a 
specified doctype and then decide to render it against another doctype could or 
would have some performance hit. And wouldn't that behavior invalidate the very 
premise of utilizing a doctype? Wouldn't it just be easier to say heck with the 
standards and just render everything in quirks mode? Which, by the way, I would 
be totally against.

Comment 22

[Bob Clary [:bc] (inactive)]

marcio

Comment 23

[/\/\arcio Galli]

We fixed this through evangelism action.

Comment 24

[Brant Gurganus]

Verified
2002022203/WinXP