599720 - Absolute positioning of child div in a table wrongly implemented

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 63895

(Core :: Layout: Positioned, defect)

Description

[noordzij.am]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nl; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100701 Firefox/3.5.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; nl; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100701 Firefox/3.5.11 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729)

I am building a webpage where I'm using a table for the basic layout. The table has only one row and two columns, has a fixed size and is positioned absolutely. Within the first column, I wish to place a number of divs that I want to use as navigational elements. I position these divs absolutely as well, which should position them relative to the first ancester that is not positioned statically. In my webpage, this would be the table element. However, it seems that my divs are positioned relative to the canvas (which should happen when I use fixed rather than absolute) or, to its first ancestor (<td>), in which case the positional values for that are incorrect.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create a one cell table and position it either absolutely or relative nested in body, making sure that top and left are both not 0px
2. Within the cell, nest a div that you position absolute as well
3.
Actual Results:  
Positioning my table at 200px left and top and my first linkdiv at 100px left and top positions the linkdiv on 100px top and left relative to the canvas

Expected Results:  
Positioning my table at 200px left and top and my first linkdiv at 100px left and top ought to position the linkdiv on 300px top and left relative to the canvas and 100px left and top from the topleft corner of my table

Comment 1

[(mostly gone) XtC4UaLL [:xtc4uall]]

Can you provide a reduced Testcase showing your Issue (and attach it here) and test against Firefox 3.6.x, Firefox 4 Beta and Opera 10.70 and Google Chrome 6/7?

Comment 2

[philippe (part-time)]

This is almost certainly a dupe of bug 63895