Closed
Bug 219052
Opened 21 years ago
Closed 19 years ago
marquee does not consider padding-left of cell => table too wide
Categories
(Core :: Layout, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: load, Assigned: martijn.martijn)
References
()
Details
(Keywords: testcase)
Attachments
(2 files, 2 obsolete files)
384 bytes,
text/html
|
Details | |
1.99 KB,
patch
|
bzbarsky
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030728 Mozilla Firebird/0.6.1 Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030728 Mozilla Firebird/0.6.1 In the page http://www.globalchat.org/ the text is expanded to ocuppy all the page width, when the "Shrink to fit page width" option in File -> Page Setup is checked and also when it's not. Due to this, the text and images are not well right-justified and the menu highlighting is larger than it should be. Maybe my explanation is not so correct (hey, I'm spanish.. :P) but if you test it you will understand what I'm trying to explain. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3.
Comment 1•21 years ago
|
||
Those are print options, which aren't relevant. The hover is changing the background color of the table cell, which is too wide. Such is the problem with using tables for structural markup. The nested table has a width: 100% which should inherit the width of 162px from the parent cell, but isn't doing that for some reason. setting the table width to 162px renders as intended, but that indicates the width doesn't get inherited properly moving to tables component
Component: Preferences → Layout: Tables
Product: Firebird → Browser
Version: unspecified → Trunk
Comment 3•21 years ago
|
||
Is this a problem with a current build? I'm not seeing any rendering problems here with SeaMonkey 1.5b...
Comment 4•21 years ago
|
||
Using Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030911 Firebird/0.6.1+ everything is fine except the rollover for the menu, which pokes into the white content area of the page. I can attach a screenshot or update my Seamonkey build if you can't see it.
Comment 5•21 years ago
|
||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Keywords: testcase
OS: Windows XP → All
Summary: "Shrink to fit page width" option is ignored and not stored → marquee does not consider padding-left of cell => table too wide
Comment 6•21 years ago
|
||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Attachment #131366 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 7•21 years ago
|
||
Attachment #131368 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Comment 8•21 years ago
|
||
-> Layout
Assignee: table → other
Component: Layout: Tables → Layout
QA Contact: madhur → ian
Comment 9•20 years ago
|
||
Indeed, same goes if its aligned to the center. Is there a way to figure out the "visible" area of an element, taking padding/margin/etc into consideration for untrusted script?
Comment 10•20 years ago
|
||
getComputedStyle may work for you (though if we change it to comply with the spec it probably won't).
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•19 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 12•19 years ago
|
||
I might be missing something here, so this patch would cause a marquee regression. Does anybody know what purpose the code serves, which I removed in the patch?
Comment 13•19 years ago
|
||
I can't think of why the original code was there, been quite a while. Not sure if we want this this late in the 1.8 cycle though. Might want to wait for 1.9.
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•19 years ago
|
||
The patch would make the behavior of bug 269257 a bit worse, but the initial cause of that bug is something different.
Assignee | ||
Comment 15•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 187642 [details] [diff] [review] patch 1.9 is fine by me, but it can already be reviewed, can't it?
Attachment #187642 -
Flags: review?(doronr)
Assignee | ||
Updated•19 years ago
|
Attachment #187642 -
Flags: review?(doronr) → review?(bzbarsky)
Comment 16•19 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 187642 [details] [diff] [review] patch r=bzbarsky, but I don't know this code that well... I'm assuming you've tested well, right?
Attachment #187642 -
Flags: superreview+
Attachment #187642 -
Flags: review?(bzbarsky)
Attachment #187642 -
Flags: review+
Updated•19 years ago
|
Assignee: layout → martijn.martijn
Comment 17•19 years ago
|
||
Checked in on trunk.
Updated•19 years ago
|
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #16) > (From update of attachment 187642 [details] [diff] [review] [edit]) > r=bzbarsky, but I don't know this code that well... I'm assuming you've tested > well, right? Yes, I've tested on nearly all marquee testcases in bugzilla and some url's in the wild, I haven't seen any regression. This has also fixed bug 234134.
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•