217002 - relatively-positioned table row should be containing block for abs pos elts

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 63895

(Core :: Layout: Positioned, defect)

Description

[Eyal Rozenberg]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030815
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030815

According to my understanding of the CSS 2 spec section regarding containing
positioning and containing blocks (

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visuren.html#choose-position

) a table row with "position: relative" should be a containing block for its
descendent elements. This claim holds, for example, in MSIE 6, but not in
Mozilla. Why?

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:

Comment 1

[Eyal Rozenberg]

Attachment: testcase for this problem

When renderng this file, one would expect the browser to position the text-link
td's within their respective tr's. Mozilla doesn't.

Comment 2

[Eyal Rozenberg]

Attachment: MSIE 6 rendering of the testcase

MSIE 6 behaves as (I believe is) expected.

Comment 3

[Eyal Rozenberg]

Sorry. I am stupid.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 5016 ***

Comment 4

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

I'd rather leave this as a separate bug.

Comment 5

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

->style system (for frame construction)

Comment 6

[(no longer active)]

The infrastructure for this has landed in bug 10209.

Comment 7

[Corey Ford [:coyotebush]]

I think bug 63895 (now) covers this situation?

Comment 8

[Eyal Rozenberg]

I don't mind this being marked as a dupe, but then, it wasn't marked as a dupe of 63895 for 10 years, so maybe there's a difference I'm missing.

Comment 9

[Corey Ford [:coyotebush]]

Bug 63895 comment 101 etc., which were posted after this bug's comment 6, seem to clarify that that bug deals with rows, cells, etc. in addition to whole tables.

Comment 10

[Corey Ford [:coyotebush]]

Pretty confident there's nothing in this bug that isn't in bug 63895.