Closed
Bug 393528
Opened 17 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
[reflow branch] shrink-to-fit float is made too wide to fit next to previous float
Categories
(Core :: Layout: Floats, defect)
Core
Layout: Floats
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
INVALID
People
(Reporter: kevin.heart, Unassigned)
References
()
Details
(Keywords: regression, testcase)
Attachments
(4 files)
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070723 Iceweasel/2.0.0.6 (Debian-2.0.0.6-0etch1)
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9a8pre) Gecko/2007082201 SeaMonkey/2.0a1pre
the layout of the page can not be rendered properly.
Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.open http://chat.icq.com
Actual Results:
the layout of the page is broken
Expected Results:
page is rendered properly
Comment 1•17 years ago
|
||
Comment 2•17 years ago
|
||
It's a regression from bug 300030. I think we're calculating the
"available width" in 10.3.5 wrong - we should subtract the width of the
first float ("d1-2").
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#float-width
Assignee: general → nobody
Blocks: reflow-refactor
Severity: minor → normal
Component: General → Layout: Floats
Keywords: regression,
testcase
OS: Linux → All
Product: Mozilla Application Suite → Core
QA Contact: general → layout.floats
Hardware: PC → All
Summary: the layout of the page is broken → [reflow branch] shrink-to-fit float is made too wide to fit next to previous float
Version: unspecified → Trunk
The available width very clearly doesn't say to subtract widths of other floats. If that happens at all, it should be quirks mode only. It causes very bad behavior with multiple floats.
That said, that's not the only possible reason other browsers might behave differently on that testcase.
Comment 4•17 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #3)
> The available width very clearly doesn't say to subtract widths of other
> floats.
Right, I missed that somehow... So, the current layout looks to be
in accordance with the spec then. FWIW, Safari/Webkit have the same layout
as Firefox trunk. IE7 and Opera 9.20 places the floats to the right as
Firefox 1.5/2.0.
Comment 5•17 years ago
|
||
Slightly more reduced testcase.
Comment 6•17 years ago
|
||
I made a reftest from Testcase #2
Comment 7•17 years ago
|
||
It seems to me this is the bug why http://www.flexmarkt.nl/ is looking wrong now in current trunk build.
Updated•17 years ago
|
Blocks: reflow-refactor
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
No longer depends on: reflow-refactor
Ever confirmed: true
Flags: blocking1.9?
Keywords: regression
Comment 8•17 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #7)
> It seems to me this is the bug why http://www.flexmarkt.nl/ is looking wrong
> now in current trunk build.
fwiw, that site displays the same in Safari 2.04, Safari 3beta and latest WebKit builds as it does on current Gecko trunk builds.
Flags: blocking1.9? → blocking1.9-
Comment 9•17 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #7)
> Created an attachment (id=285356) [details]
> testcase, deduced from flexmarkt.nl
>
> It seems to me this is the bug why http://www.flexmarkt.nl/ is looking wrong
> now in current trunk build.
>
So, just trying to understand this bug.
The CSS 2.0 specifications recommend to give a width for every floated element. Actually in this testcase, if you give a width to the floated element, it will render properly.
According to CSS 2.1 specifications, this isn't necessary anymore and browsers should render it properly, meaning the floated element should take the width from content.
Since FF3.0 get parent's width I consider this is a bug...
CSS2.1 specifically says what information is used in the shrink-to-fit algorithm (although it doesn't define the algorithm precisely); the available width inside the containing block is used; the positions of other floats or space next to them are not.
Doing what you propose has very bad consequences when pages are resized, since floats can become very tall and narrow before "wrapping", breaking the layout much more severely than it would be if they "wrapped" earlier.
Comment 12•16 years ago
|
||
I'm also seeing this problem on http://www.zdnet.be/news.cfm?id=88954&mxp=100 .
Comment 14•11 years ago
|
||
All the testcases look exactly the same on Nightly, Chrome 31 and IE 11.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → WORKSFORME
I think INVALID is more accurate here, since we're choosing not to fix the bug as reported, and choosing not to fix matches the relevant specs (and other browsers).
Resolution: WORKSFORME → INVALID
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•