User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030827 Mozilla Firebird/0.6.1+ Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030827 Mozilla Firebird/0.6.1+ When using IFRAMEs without no element between them, ie <IFRAME ...></IFRAME> <IFRAME ...></IFRAME> <IFRAME ...></IFRAME> only the first one is displayed, the other seem to be located just under the first one and not displayed. Simply adding an element eg <BR> is a workaround. This is a regression in FB 0.6.1; it is working well with Phoenix 0.5. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Look at http://home.planetinternet.be/~pbajoit/lebutch/Mozilla/master.htm , only 1 IFRAME is visible 2. Look at the HTML, 3 are used, 3. Look at http://home.planetinternet.be/~pbajoit/lebutch/Mozilla/masterOK.htm , the 3 IFRAMEs are visible 4. Look at the HTML, the IFRAMEs are separated with <BR> Actual Results: Only 1 IFRAME is displayed rather than all (3 in the example) Expected Results: Display all IFRAMEs NOT on top of each other.
Are all the nested tables necessary to reproduce this bug? Or is it reproducible with fewer levels of nesting, possibly without tables at all? Seeing this in 1.5b SeaMonkey, so over to layout.
Actually the problems is related to TABLEs. BODY containing just IFRAMEs works well.
Right, but there are several levels of table nesting in the testcase. Are they all needed? Put another way, how much HTML can you remove and still have the problem show up?
The test case is now better. A simple TABLE is enough to reproduce. Accurately, all these conditions are needed: 1. a TD of a TABLE 2. nothing between the IFRAMEs 3. IFRAME attribute FRAMEBORDER="0" 4. IFRAME attribute WIDTH="100%"
Maybe this will be fixed by bug 173277? -> Layout:Tables
Ah, good point... shouldn't we be line-breaking between those iframes/images, though?
Yes, we probably should, but I think we have a compatibility hack that makes us keep <img> space <img> on the same line no matter what... Not related to bug 173277. I think I see what happens now, there is simply no space left for the second image once the first has been sized to the full width of the cell so it will be 100% of zero.
Looks like bug 97695, then. We should be sizing as percentage of containing block, not available space...
Notice that on IFRAMEs 1. with WIDTH="100%" 2. without FRAMEBORDER="0" the display is correct
This is probably dependent on bug 194804 too -- there seems to be an issue with what tables do
14 years ago