126238 - link :hover in positioned area above a block element changes color on lower layer

Status: VERIFIED WORKSFORME

(Core :: Layout, defect)

Description

[Kelson]

I have a page which positions an h1 element in a watermark by positioning two
div elements at the same location, placing the h1 in the lower div and making
the text light gray and extremely large.  With the 2/15 and 2/17 builds,
hovering over any links in the front layer causes the h1 behind it to change
from gray to black - but only beneath the link itself.  The rest of the h1 keeps
its original color.

Additionally, switching away from the browser to another window that covers the
watermark, then switching back, will cause the same effect - the portion of the
h1 that was covered is now black instead of gray.

Further investigation shows that while simply placing text in the div does not
show this problem, placing it in a p element inside the div does.

I can also get a similar effect by rapidly moving the browser window partly
offscreen then back into view several times.  While this is more difficult to
reproduce, it also seems to occur even without any div elements or positioning
at all, the only style rule being a color change.

Finally, and I'm not sure this last part is related or not, the first link in
the list reverts to black instead of the defalt link color after it exits :hover.

2/12 build was fine; first saw on 2/15 build.  I'm testing this on Windows 2000.

Comment 1

[Kelson]

Attachment: Test case

Attaching a test case with positioned div elements, an h1 in the lower one, and
links in the upper one.

Comment 2

[Kelson]

Attachment: Screen shot after :hovering first 3 links

Attaching screen shot of problem.

Comment 3

[Kelson]

Argh.  Just noticed it happens with the text straight in the div if you include
a <br> (i.e. <div id="#watermark">Line 1<br>Line 2</div> has the problem but
<div id="#watermark">One long line</div> does not.)

Comment 4

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Marking dependency on bug that will likely fix this.

Comment 5

[Kelson]

Looks good in Win2k 2002021903.  Thanks!

Comment 6

[Christine Hoffman]

Changing QA contact

Comment 7

[Amarendra Hanumanula]

works fine on the latest build Id: 2002022003
Platform : WIn2K. closing the bug

Comment 8

[Amarendra Hanumanula]

verified