a fixed block should become container to any children appended through DOM

VERIFIED FIXED in mozilla0.9.7

Status

()

P2
normal
VERIFIED FIXED
17 years ago
17 years ago

People

(Reporter: alexey, Assigned: dbaron)

Tracking

({dom1, testcase})

Trunk
mozilla0.9.7
dom1, testcase
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

Attachments

(3 attachments, 2 obsolete attachments)

(Reporter)

Description

17 years ago
Build: 2001112009

According to
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#absolute-positioning

An element with absolute or fixed position should become a containing block for
all of it's descendants.

In Mozilla, if an child is added through DOM to an absolutely positioned element
the behaviour is correct.
But if a child is added to a fixed element, viewport is treated as it's container.

See attached testcase.
(Reporter)

Comment 1

17 years ago
Created attachment 59103 [details]
testcase
(Reporter)

Updated

17 years ago
Keywords: dom1, testcase
Seeing this on Linux 2001-11-23-08 too.

The DOM is correct (per DOM inspector) but looks like the frame model is confused...
OS: Windows 2000 → All
Hardware: PC → All
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Priority: -- → P2
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla0.9.7
I should see if I can fix bug 91060 at the same time.
Created attachment 59111 [details] [diff] [review]
patch that also fixes bug 91060
Attachment #59109 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Created attachment 59112 [details] [diff] [review]
patch that also fixes bug 91060, diff -w (for review)
Attachment #59111 - Attachment is obsolete: true
This patch makes two changes:
 * considersl fixed positioned elements as well, in addition to relative and
absolute (fixes this bug)
 * walks down two scroll frames in addition to just one (although I'm leaving
the just-one code since we could start from the frame where it is just one), to
fix bug 91060.
(Reporter)

Comment 9

17 years ago
Comment on attachment 59112 [details] [diff] [review]
patch that also fixes bug 91060, diff -w (for review)

David, I assume this patch is obsolete as well?
No, one is a diff -w and the other isn't.  I just accidentally attached the
wrong one when I attached the first non -w.

Comment 11

17 years ago
Comment on attachment 59113 [details] [diff] [review]
patch that also fixes bug 91060

sr=attinasi
Attachment #59113 - Flags: superreview+

Comment 12

17 years ago
Comment on attachment 59113 [details] [diff] [review]
patch that also fixes bug 91060

r=waterson
Attachment #59113 - Flags: review+
Fix checked in 2001-11-27 20:57 PDT.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 17 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
(Reporter)

Comment 14

17 years ago
verified on 2001112803
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.