369649 - The installation of CSS is kind of 'only the half way' - compare URL in Opera and IE

Status: VERIFIED INVALID

(Firefox :: General, defect)

Description

[Juergen Smolka]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061010 Firefox/2.0
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.1) Gecko/20061010 Firefox/2.0

If you compare the (second) page within different browsers, you will discover that the page view of - Sorry! - IE is the best one, the Opera view is between IE and Firefox and the page viewed in Firefox really looks not very well. 
Didn't you state the full integration of CSS 2.0? Well, it seems not to work as it should work.

>> http://home.arcor.de/j.smolka/ibs/index.html <<

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Put in http://www.ingenieurbuero.de.ms/
2. Or put in the URL of the second page directly http://home.arcor.de/j.smolka/ibs/index.html
3. Have a look at the second page in different browsers

Actual Results:  
E. g. you will see big CSS-buttons where you should see small ones.

Expected Results:  
A nice page view like that one in IE. (Sorry again!)

Comment 1

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

In your stylesheets
http://home.arcor.de/j.smolka/ibs/css_js/ibs.tan.css
http://home.arcor.de/j.smolka/ibs/css_js/ibs.grey.css

you have specified

p.button
 {
	width: 120px;
        height: 44px;
        ...

so that's the size we use to render the element.
The layout in Firefox is correct per the CSS 2.1 specification.
(The bug is in IE.)

-> INVALID

Comment 2

[Juergen Smolka]

Hi Mats,

Many thanks for the fast reaction.

I really do not want to say you are wrong. But truly brood over the following, please: (I am NOT a Microsoft fan!)

 - IE is still going strong
 - It is still the commonly used browser
 - In fact it is the de facto standard

So, from my point of view, a competing product must be at least as good as it (or better). 

Now, have a look at the 'buttons' again. In IE as a matter of fact they looks very well, aren't they. 

Shouldn't they look as well or maybe superior to IE in Firefox? Yes indeed! But as you can hardly believe the Firefox view is ugly, nasty and unsightly.

So I think it is the wrong way to only state: "The bug is in IE."

Maybe anybody should think about:
 - Why is the view of the 'buggy IE' smugger than the view of 'good' Firefox?
 - What can we do to be better than 'buggy IE'?
 - ...

Best Regards,

  Juergen


 

Comment 3

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

We implement what the standard says:  http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
If you think your page is ugly then change your stylesheets to get the layout
you desire.

-> INVALID

Comment 4

[Dave Townsend [:mossop]]

V. INVALID.

Comment 5

[Juergen Smolka]

Okay, no problem.

I mustn't use Firefox! 

And it is easy to advice people to use Microsoft InternetExplorer (the best).

So long,

  JS

Comment 6

[Dave Townsend [:mossop]]

The bug is INVALID since the bug is a problem with the page, not firefox.

Comment 7

[Juergen Smolka]

Microsoft InternetExplorer has no problem with the page.

Comment 8

[Juergen Smolka]

-> Leave as VERIFIED WORKSFORME

Comment 9

[Shawn Wilsher :sdwilsh]

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=etiquette.html
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=fields.html#resolution

WORKSFORME doesn't make sense here.  This is INVALID.  There is no bug, we are rendering this exactly as we should
(as does Opera, and Safari for that matter).

The spec we are referring to is the W3C CSS spec, the one you indicate on the
first page that you are compliant with.