263888 - CSS hiccup: extra pixel of black under white rectangle at top right - firefox adding unwanted padding.

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 259683

(Core :: Layout: Floats, defect)

Description

[drdelinquent]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040913 Firefox/0.10.1
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041011 Firefox/0.10.1

The style switching panel at the top right of the page
(http://thehunt.net.au/news/) is displayed incorrectly. It consists of two
left-floated block <a/> elements within an absolutely positioned <div/>. The
containing div should only be large enough to fit the elements, but Firefox
renders the div exactly as if it had padding-bottom of 1px. This was not a
problem in releases prior to 1.0PR.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
Simply view the page in Firefox.
Actual Results:  
Firefox incorrectly rendered the page as described above.

Expected Results:  
Rendered the box model according to the CSS standard.

This bug was not present in releases prior to 1.0PR.

Comment 1

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

I can't see the bug, using:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8a2) Gecko/20040618
Firefox/0.8.0+
But I can see the bug, using:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8a2) Gecko/20040622
Firefox/0.8.0+

This looks similar to 259683. There it was discovered that the fix for bug
140611 was to blame.

Comment 2

[Uri Bernstein]

Attachment: testcase

Notice the white gap below the red (floated) div inside the
absolutely-positioned outer div (which has a black background).
The width of the gap is the same as the width of the border (10px in this
testcase).

Comment 3

[Uri Bernstein]

Seeing this on:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.8a5) Gecko/20041009 Firefox/0.9.1+

Comment 4

[Uri Bernstein]

Yeah, looks similar to 259683, but the testcase there seems to be a bit more
complicated. Confirming for now, and leaving to someone else to determine
whether it's a duplicate.

Comment 5

[Uri Bernstein]

Given some more testing, I'm now convinced it is a dupe.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 259683 ***

Comment 6

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Actually, let's mark this dependent for now... the testcases are sufficiently
different that they could be different issues.

Comment 7

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Yeah, ok.  This got fixed by the patch to bug 259683

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 259683 ***