648 bytes, text/html
With the following <select style="width: 100px; hidden;"> <option>Kibology for all. All for Kibology. Kibology for all. All for Kibology.</option> </select> <br /> <select style="width: 100px; hidden;" size="2"> <option>Kibology for all. All for Kibology. Kibology for all. All for Kibology.</option> </select> I get unnecessary scrollbars. The first single line select shows a vertical scrollbar when opened (arrow clicked) although there is only one option. This option should be displayed in its full height without any (need for a) scrollbar. The second multiple line select shows both vertical and horizontal scrollbars. There shouldn't be horizontal scrollbars as overflow is set to hidden, and I don't understand why there is is a vertical scrollbar, the size is set to 2 and there is only one option. It seems that first a height for size two is choosen, then the horizontal scrollbar is put in cutting of from the height which makes the vertical scrollbar necessary (but that is only my guess).
Created attachment 39565 [details] bug demo (open first select to see scrollbar, second select shows scrollbars anyway)
Somebody broke something, it used to work a lot better than this.
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Priority: -- → P1
Moving to Future
Target Milestone: mozilla1.0 → Future
Martin, Is this still an issue?
Created attachment 142585 [details] new test case (as previous one doesn't seem to have correct CSS syntax) To be able to answer the request whether the problem still exists I have looked at the previous test case again and found that the CSS used in there is not even syntactically correct. I have written a new test case which I am uploading now, in that test case the horizontal scrollbars are gone when tested with Mozilla 1.7a (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7a) Gecko/20040219), only the second select still has a vertical scrollbar which it doesn't need as there is only one option in a select with size set to two.
Attachment #39565 - Attachment is obsolete: true
Martin, the second issue you mention is bug 203645. I suggest duping this one to that one since that one got a bit of attention.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 203645 ***
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.