Closed Bug 55291 Opened 24 years ago Closed 23 years ago

first "enter" in mailcompose behaves like CR (no LF)

Categories

(Core :: DOM: Editor, defect, P3)

Product:
Core
Component:
DOM: Editor
Platform:
x86
Linux
Type:
defect

Tracking

()

Status:
RESOLVED FIXED
Milestone:
Future

People

(Reporter: spam, Assigned: mozeditor)

Details

(Keywords: helpwanted) 

linux 2000-100408

Wnen writing a mail and hitting "enter" key, what i see seems to only perform a
carriage return. (caret is brought to beginning of existing line.)

An actual visual linefeed will appear only when i start typing again. This is
confusing behaviour, in particular since adding yet another "enter" now will
seemingly jump the caret TWO lines down. (now visually showing also the first
linefeed).
clarifying summary
Summary: "enter" in mailcompose behaves like CR → first "enter" in mailcompose behaves like CR (no LF)
after having restarted it worked again,  but there's some intermittant lurker
here that probably should be fixed. Lowering severity.
Severity: normal → minor
reassign to editor team.
Assignee: ducarroz → beppe
-> joe, future. This sounds like some bogus node/caret placement stuff.
Assignee: beppe → jfrancis
Target Milestone: --- → Future
moz 0.9
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Target Milestone: Future → mozilla0.9
QA Contact: esther → pmock
oops, didn't notice "intermittant" before.  futuring since I have a large supply 
of reproducible bugs for moz 0.9
Target Milestone: mozilla0.9 → Future
moving misc editor bugs into browser product
Component: Composition → Editor
Product: MailNews → Browser
Target Milestone: Future → ---
not sure how this got unfutured, moving to future per joe's comments
Keywords: helpwanted
Target Milestone: --- → Future
fixed
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 23 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
jfrancis, could you look into whether or not bug 95056 is a dupe of this?  My
comments there seem to reflect the behavior here, not sure that is true for
others in that bug, though.  I have seen a lot of caret issues that are probably
dupes, but without seeing the code, it is hard to tell.

Similar also to bug 96704, as I could generate this behavior with a couple extra
steps added to the original procedure there.  I see that you are already
familiar with that one, too.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.