Closed
Bug 212854
Opened 21 years ago
Closed 21 years ago
complex constructed 'picture' rendered wrong
Categories
(Core :: CSS Parsing and Computation, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
DUPLICATE
of bug 196270
People
(Reporter: harm.verhagen+bugzilla, Assigned: dbaron)
References
()
Details
(Keywords: testcase)
Attachments
(5 files)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 The url points to a browser stress test site. The problem is that the picture that is constructed on this url is not rendered correctly in mozilla. IE 6.0 does this correct. (IE is however much slower than mozilla...) note: the url is about browser performance/stressing. This bug is not about this. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. click url (400kbyte html file) 2. view the (slowly constructed) 'picture' of a cat. Actual Results: The picture of the cat has white lines every other pixel. Expected Results: The picture appears without white lines. (like IE 6.0 does)
Comment 1•21 years ago
|
||
No lines visible with linux trunk build 2003-07-16-05. Over to something like the right component.
Assignee: dom_bugs → other
Component: DOM HTML → Layout
QA Contact: desale → ian
Comment 2•21 years ago
|
||
WFM 20030710 PC/WinXP
Comment 3•21 years ago
|
||
The problem is the specified CSS font: "font: 1px/1 Ahem;" Changing this to "font: 1px/1px Ahem;" makes it render as expected. It's a Quirk mode page and I think we accept lengths without a unit in this mode, so maybe we should here too? "font: 1/1px Ahem;" also works for example. -> Style System
Assignee: other → dbaron
Severity: normal → minor
Component: Layout → Style System
Keywords: testcase
OS: Windows 2000 → All
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•21 years ago
|
||
numbers are valid for 'line-height'. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 196270 ***
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 21 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•21 years ago
|
||
(I don't see the problem on Linux, either, though, so maybe it shouldn't be a duplicate.)
Comment 6•21 years ago
|
||
I think this might be dependent on what font the X server gives you... This is what I see on 2003-07-14-22 trunk Linux.
Comment 7•21 years ago
|
||
Comment 8•21 years ago
|
||
It looks a bit stretched, right?
Comment 9•21 years ago
|
||
When I set GECKO_USE_COMPUTED_HEIGHT the 1px/1 case renders them same as 1px/1px, so I guess it is a duplicate after all?
Comment 10•19 years ago
|
||
The testcase at the URL looks completly broken in Deer Park Alpha 2 and Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a1) Gecko/20050817 Firefox/1.6a1. I don't think the current behavior is related to line-height.
Comment 11•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #10) It's because we start ignoring stuff as we reach a certain tag depth (bug 58917 / bug 256180), so the current rendering is intentional.
Comment 12•19 years ago
|
||
As a test I took dbaron's patch for bug 196270 and then changed MAX_REFLOW_DEPTH to huge value and this is the result. It shows that Gecko would render this evil testcase correctly if we let it run with unconstrained tag depth, however this could cause crashes/hangs on some hosts. To give you an idea: it took over 3 hours to render this page (reaching a maximum reflow depth of 18085) on a 3GHz P4 running at 100% CPU and the process memory usage was ~150MB when finished.
Comment 13•19 years ago
|
||
(Just for fun. Yes, that is at 100% text size...) Thanks for the info, quite interesting. It's just a bit baffling that in earlier Mozilla versions the cat was at least recognizable and displayed in a reasonable amount of time. Now I get nothing more than an ugly-colored rectangle, let's hope fixing bug 256180 brings an improvement.
Reporter | ||
Comment 14•17 years ago
|
||
I see that in firefox 2.0.0.3 the URL does again not render correctly. on windows XP (dell laptop) the 'cat' renders as an opaque grey block. Should this be reopened?
Comment 15•17 years ago
|
||
The remaining issue is covered by bug 256180 I think. (see comment 10/11/12)
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•