424301 - Table layout changes cause overlap on Westpac online banking site

Status: NEW

(Core :: Layout, defect)

Description

[Arie Paap [:wildmyron]]

Attachment: testcase

The online banking application (restricted access) at westpac.com.au has overlap of the header and main body of the page (follow URL for screenshot)

The layout behaviour changed between
OK: 2008-01-28-04
NG: 2008-01-29-04

bonsai link: http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsquery.cgi?treeid=default&module=PhoenixTinderbox&branch=HEAD&branchtype=match&dir=&file=&filetype=match&who=&whotype=match&sortby=Date&hours=2&date=explicit&mindate=2008-01-28+03%3A00&maxdate=2008-01-29+05%3A00&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot

There's a fairly large number of changes in there, but I'm pretty sure bug 134706 caused the change. I've attached a testcase which shows the change in layout of the header. The pages doctype is for some strange reason set to Frameset which I've retained in the testcase. Changing it to Transitional results in the same behaviour.

Notes:
1) post bug 134706 layout has an extra linebreak inserted.

2) The 2nd level table doesn't expand to contain the innermost table.

3) If I wrap the innermost table (adjacent to first <img>) in <td></td> then both 1) and 2) are fixed. I tried doing this in the original source and it fixes the main problem with the page layout but there's still some unwanted line wrapping occurring.

4) This is fairly heavily reduced, so I can't be certain that if the testcase renders correctly that the original page will too. I can attach source of original page if requested.

If this is the desired behaviour then I presume this is an evangelism issue. I would appreciate an explanation which I can pass on to Westpac.

Thanks,

Arie.

Comment 1

[Steve England [:stevee]]

Tighter range for the change in behaviour:

Before: 20080128_2340_firefox-3.0b3pre.en-US.win32
After: 20080129_0018_firefox-3.0b3pre.en-US.win32

Checkins to module PhoenixTinderbox between 2008-01-28 23:40 and 2008-01-29 00:18 : 
http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsquery.cgi?treeid=default&module=PhoenixTinderbox&branch=HEAD&branchtype=match&dir=&file=&filetype=match&who=&whotype=match&sortby=Date&hours=2&date=explicit&mindate=2008-01-28+23%3A40&maxdate=2008-01-29+00%3A18&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot

Comment 2

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

FWIW, the first patch in bug 414558 fixes the testcase, which means this
bug might be invalid (bug 414558 comment 20).

Comment 3

[Jonas Sicking (:sicking) No longer reading bugmail consistently]

Based on comment 3 this is not a blocker since it's likely invalid. Please renominate if you have further information indicating that isn't the case.

Comment 4

[John Heron]

I had a table overlap on the Westpac Banking site too..

Comment 5

[Troodon]

I see something like this on the Caja Madrid Empresas banking site (it's a spanish bank). You can see it on their demo site: 
http://www.cajamadridempresas.es/Portal_OIE/DemoOIE/HTML/frames.html

Do you think it could be the same issue as the one described in this bug?
Thank you!

Comment 6

[Arie Paap [:wildmyron]]

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9pre) Gecko/2008041506 Minefield/3.0pre ID:2008041506

The change which fixed bug 414558 hasn't changed the layout of the Westpac banking site, i.e. it still looks the same as the image at the URL field. testcase rendering hasn't changed either - there is still an extra linebreak compared to pre bug 134706 layout.

Removing dependancy.

Troodon: it's very hard to tell at a glance if bugs in web page layout have the same cause. The only certain way to tell is with a testcase as described at http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/bugathon.html#testcase . I would recommend that you file a new bug.

Comment 7

[Troodon]

(In reply to comment #6)
> Troodon: it's very hard to tell at a glance if bugs in web page layout have the
> same cause. The only certain way to tell is with a testcase as described at
> http://www.mozilla.org/newlayout/bugathon.html#testcase . I would recommend
> that you file a new bug.
> 

I asked here because I didn't have time to dig through their code and make a testcase. Now I have taken a look at it and it seems to be a fault on their side. Also, "surprisingly" all thier code it's a mess.

Thank you for your attention!