Open
Bug 590716
Opened 15 years ago
Updated 5 years ago
Styles trying to set text-decoration don't work on anchors inside <body contenteditable="true">
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Editor, defect, P5)
Core
DOM: Editor
Tracking
()
UNCONFIRMED
People
(Reporter: zacherates, Unassigned)
References
Details
(Keywords: testcase)
Attachments
(1 file)
|
553 bytes,
text/html
|
Details |
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Firefox/3.6.7 KilnClientv0.1 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.2; en-US; rv:1.9.2.7) Gecko/20100713 Firefox/3.6.7 KilnClientv0.1 ( .NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Rules such as "a{ text-decoration: none; }" fail to remove the underline on <a>s inside of <body contenteditable="true">.
This is reproducible in Minefield (August 25) for all links and for unvisited links in FireFox 3.6
(I'll attach the webpage I'm using to repro.)
Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Open the attached html page.
2. See that the links are underlined even though their text-decoration should be none.
|
Reporter | |
Comment 1•15 years ago
|
||
|
||
Comment 2•15 years ago
|
||
I see this in Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; rv:2.0b6pre) Gecko/20100904 Firefox/4.0b6pre
Keywords: testcase
OS: Windows Server 2003 → All
Product: Firefox → Core
QA Contact: general → general
Hardware: x86 → All
Version: unspecified → Trunk
|
|
||
Comment 3•15 years ago
|
||
contenteditable.css is an override sheet that gets loaded and applies to editable content and styles anchors.
The relevant part of that file:
82 /* We suppress user/author's prefs for link underline,
83 so we must set explicitly. This isn't good!
84 */
85 a:link:-moz-read-write {
86 text-decoration: underline -moz-anchor-decoration;
87 color: -moz-hyperlinktext;
88 }
Peter, do you recall why that's needed?
Aaron, you should be able to use !important declarations to get around this, I think....
Component: General → Editor
QA Contact: general → editor
|
||
Comment 4•15 years ago
|
||
Hmm, that CSS rule seems silly to me... I can't think of any reason why that's needed.
|
||
Comment 6•5 years ago
|
||
Bulk-downgrade of unassigned, >=5 years untouched DOM/Storage bugs' priority.
If you have reason to believe this is wrong (especially for the severity), please write a comment and ni :jstutte.
Severity: normal → S4
Priority: -- → P5
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•