Closed Bug 305707 Opened 19 years ago Closed 19 years ago

iframe has a stubborn "default" size

Categories

(Core :: Layout: Images, Video, and HTML Frames, defect)

x86
Windows XP
defect
Not set
normal

Tracking

()

RESOLVED INVALID

People

(Reporter: billyswong, Unassigned)

Details

Attachments

(7 files)

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050716 Firefox/1.0.6
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050716 Firefox/1.0.6

I've never thought iframe has default size.  But there is.  And sometimes
workarounds give you a result stranger than you can imagine.

See attachments.

Reproducible: Always
Attached file iframe only
Flags: testcase?
seems that this bug covers both bug 73464 and 253363
This is invalid; the default size of the iframe is there for compat reasons and because using an intrinsic size of 0 would be silly.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
(In reply to comment #8)
> This is invalid; the default size of the iframe is there for compat reasons and
> because using an intrinsic size of 0 would be silly.
> 

The bug is not at example00.  (I can stand that.)  It is at the strange interaction when different elements are added into example00, either in hope of counteracting the default size, or unintentionally inside a actual website.  The way iframe was treated is out of normal people's imagination.  (and broke websites)

In example01, iframe expand to fill the screen.  (and add a strange scrollbar to the page outside)  But in example03, just a table outside undo the effect of "width=100% height=100%"!   What happen in the last example is even crazier!  This is something even "default size" cannot explain!  I really think this is a bug!

(Calmed down) I can feel that this bug is very hard to fix, being a design problem in gecko engine...
Status: RESOLVED → UNCONFIRMED
Resolution: INVALID → ---
All your tests are in quirks mode; those behaviors are correct in that mode and needed for compat with sites authored to bugs in IE and Netscape 4.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago19 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
(In reply to comment #10)
> All your tests are in quirks mode; those behaviors are correct in that mode and
> needed for compat with sites authored to bugs in IE and Netscape 4.
> 

Correct? You say what I see in the tests is correct? Even if those scrollbars don't appear in IE? (Well, there's always a scrollbar at the right in IE, but it remain gray-out, which is what it should be) It is correct even when the iframe in the last test expand horizontally but not vertically in Fx, and Fx only?  Or do you mean this is my computer's problem and you don't see the same thing happen on your machine?  (I have upgraded to Firefox1.5)

I added loose.dtd to the last test and the iframe's height is still the same. No help. 
Status: RESOLVED → UNCONFIRMED
Resolution: INVALID → ---
Feel free to tell me if you still don't see it as a bug when the same thing doesn't happen in IE6.
I mean "correct" in that the code we have gives us maximal compat with IE on most sites with minimal deviation from the CSS standards.  Again, the behavior is as-desired.

> I added loose.dtd to the last test and the iframe's height is still the same.
> No help. 

In standards mode, the iframe height should be the default height in every single one of these testcases.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago19 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
For what it's worth, your last testcase may indeed show an issue in table sizing in general; it may be worth filing a separate bug on that (since I bet it has nothing to do with iframes and should be reproducible if the iframe is replaced with a div).
Flags: in-testsuite? → in-testsuite-
Product: Core → Core Graveyard
Component: Layout: HTML Frames → Layout: Images
Product: Core Graveyard → Core
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Attachment

General

Creator:
Created:
Updated:
Size: