203888 - { line-height: 200%; } is spaced too tightly but { line-height: 2; } is not

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 158868

(Core :: CSS Parsing and Computation, defect)

Description

[Jason Spiro]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030422 Firebird Browser/0.6
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030422 Firebird Browser/0.6

When using the percent notation (line-height: 200%) to specify a page element's
line-height, the lines are spaced far tighter together than they should be. The
decimal notation (line-height: 2) works as it should.

Please see the attached file, "line-height bug testcase.html".


Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:




According to <a
href="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visudet.html#propdef-line-height">the
line-height section of the CSS2 spec</a> both notations should have done exactly
the same thing.

Comment 1

[Jason Spiro]

Attachment: demonstrates the bug

Comment 2

[Erik]

Not able to re-create the problem using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT4.0;
en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030429 Mozilla Firebird/0.6.
When I view the attached test-case both paragraphs look the same (and that is
what they are supposed to - if I get the problem description correctly)...

Jason: if at all I suppose this one to be a Mozilla bug, so did you give it a
try with latest Mozilla? And did you tried to reproduce this one with latest
Mozilla Firebird together with a fresh profile?

Comment 3

[David Tenser [:djst]]

If this is a valid bug, which I don't have time to test, it's most certainly a
bug in the Gecko rendering engine, not in the Phoenix front-end. 

Comment 4

[Jan Moesen]

WFM in both Firebird and Mozilla

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030401
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030427 Mozilla
Firebird/0.6

Do you still see this behaviour? Have a screenshot? Could it be one of your user
CSS rules overriding something?

Comment 5

[Owen Marshall (Not reading bugmail)]

reassign to layout

Comment 6

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

For those who see the bug:  what is your default font?

Comment 7

[Jason Spiro]

To reproduce the problem, you must set a Minimum font size in "Preferences >
Appearance > Fonts & Colors". The Minimum font size must be larger than the
Proportional font size.

A Proportional font size of 12 and a Minimum font size of 24 make the problem
really obvious.

Mr. Baron, thank you for your post. It helped me to realize this.

Comment 8

[Jason Spiro]

David Tenser is right. The bug does not only take place in Firebird.

Based on my informal testing, the bug does not occur in:

Mozilla 1.0 -- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530
Mozilla 1.0.2 -- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021216
Mozilla 1.1 -- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020826

It does occur in:

Mozilla 1.2a -- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.2a) Gecko/20020910
Mozilla 1.2b -- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.2b) Gecko/20021016
Mozilla 1.3 -- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312
Apr. 29, 2003 Firebird nightly -- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US;
rv:1.4b) Gecko/20030429 Firebird Browser/0.6
May 1, 2003 Mozilla nightly -- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.4b)
Gecko/20030501

Something must have changed between Aug. 26, 2002 (the Mozilla 1.1 release date)
and Sept. 10, 2002 (the Mozilla 1.1 release date.) Sorry, but I can't find
nightly builds that old, and I don't know how to use CVS.

Do people often do what I just did to help track down Mozilla bugs?

Comment 9

[Erik]

I'm no back to Phoenix Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.3a)
Gecko/20030201 Phoenix/0.5 as it seems to be a problem with Win98 and I'm not
able to re-create the problem so I give up and leave to bug to the ones beeing
able to re-create this baby ;)

Comment 10

[David Baron :dbaron: (⌚️UTC-4, no longer working on Mozilla)]

.

Comment 11

[Jason Spiro]

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 158868 ***