The background image on this page (set on the HTML element) nolonger appears. It used to.
I don't see a background image set on that page (maybe I'm not looking in the right places), and neither IE nor Moz currently displays one. Both browsers display a colored background (also set in the stylesheet). Win98 2000 053008. There's a background image set in css, but I can't figure out the correct absolute URL for the image (I keep getting 404 not found errors). What is the absolute URL of the background image that's supposed to load? I do get a background image under the text "... ellipsis", btw.
It's in spackle.css. Of course IE doesn't show it; IE (contrary to the specs) doesn't support setting the background on the HTML element. The URL to the image is <http://www.endoframe.com/stylesheets/images/c10.jpg>. It's there, so you shouldn't be getting a 404. And, yes, I'm aware that the background behind "... ellipsis" is working.
Reassiging to Kevin for bug triage.
Reassigning to Don.
background-image will work on the body (workaround), will look at what is happening when specified on the HTML element...
The CSS2 spec states: "User agents should observe the following precedence rules to fill in the background: if the value of the 'background' property for the HTML element is different from 'transparent' then use it, else use the value of the 'background' property for the BODY element." Note that it says *should* and is thus a recommendation, not a requirement. Also, the CSS2 spec *recommends* that authors specify their background properties on the BODY element rather than the HTML element. (see CSS2 14.2) spackle.css has a background color and image on both the HTML and the BODY elements. We are using the one on the BODY rather than the one on the HTML, and the background-image property on the body is 'none' hence you are getting no background image. I'll reword the summary and take ownership of this bug, however it is not likely to get fixed soon since we are not actually in conflict with the specification and the use of the background property on BOTH the HTML and BODY elements is unusual. (note that we honor the background property on the HTML element if there is none specified on the BODY, the problem is when you have both the BODY will win). Thanks for pointing out the bug.
Marc: The business in the CSS spec about BODY->HTML inheritence only applies when HTML doesn't have a background (i.e., HTML's bg is transparent). There are already a few bugs open on this issue that you may wish to have a look at if you are planning on fixing this: bug 2285: Backgrounds on BODY and HTML bug 13473: Root element's background should cover the canvas bug 35681: Body is sized too wide There are many test cases here: http://www.bath.ac.uk/%7Epy8ieh/internet/projects/mozilla/background/
Thanks, Ian. From my reading of the spec it is just a recommendation anyway, not a requirement. It was my mistake, however, in the re-coding of BodyFixupRule::MapStyleInto, to overwrite the HTML background properties with the BODY background properties. I'll have to get back to that and take care of the case where the HTML has a background property set and the BODY's background is set as well.
Mark: You may argue that those particular words in the spec are not a requirement, but if you choose not to follow them, then you should follow the normal rules for applying styles to elements. Currently, Mozilla isn't doing that either, thus it is violating the spec. Those rules in the spec are there to allow the canvas to take the backgrounds specified on BODY under some specific circumstances. If Mozilla is using BODY's background for the canvas under any other circumstances, it's doing something other than the spec allows for.
This is a CSS1 issue; adding keyword.
I'm not arguing that we are doing the right thing - in fact I have admitted that I introduced this bug when I reworked the code that maps the HTML and BODY backgrounds onto the canvas frame. I have every intention to fix that code when I can, it is just that the priority is a little bit lower right now. Please bear with me, or better yet, take a look at the method BodyFixupRule::MapStyleInto and help me out. Thanks.
*** Bug 45456 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://style.verso.com/boxacidtest/vd/ It would be a shame if nsbeta2 would not correctly render this (famous) test, therefore nominating it.
Putting on [nsbeta2-] radar. Not critical to beta2.
I'm with Peter. It would be a shame to release a public commercial preview that breaks the most famous test of standards-compliance around. Can't do anything about it myself, unfortunately, but I'm adding myself to the cc list anyway.
Patch for this is attached to related bug 2285 - please set your eyes upon it.
Fixed by fixing bug 2285 (same problem, in nsHTMLBodyElement.cpp) Verifier: please verify that the site http://style.verso.com/boxacidtest/vd/ now matches the reference image.
As per meeting with ChrisD today, taking QA. VERIFIED FIXED on Win32 commerical 2000072508. Woohoo!