Closed Bug 9258 Opened 21 years ago Closed 19 years ago

[FIX] topmargin="0" leftmargin="0" not applied

Categories

(Core :: Layout, defect, P3)

x86
All
defect

Tracking

()

VERIFIED FIXED
mozilla0.9.4

People

(Reporter: bene, Assigned: attinasi)

References

()

Details

(Keywords: topembed)

Attachments

(2 files)

<body topmargin="0" leftmargin="0">

I am not quite sure if the margin's are suppost to be part of the HTML specs, but if they are,
they aren't quite working properly.  If they are not part of the HTML spec, then I appologize.

But it wouldn't hurt to include support for these tags.

Ben Efros
Assignee: rickg → kipp
Kipp-- I don't think we do topmargin and leftmargin this way, do we? If not,
please close this bug.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 21 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
1. Navigator never supported "topmargin" or "leftmargin" for body elements; it
does support "marginwidth" and "marginheight" which provides symmetric
left/right top/bottom margins, but is deprecated in favor of the css approach.

2. HTML4 has no such attributes for the BODY element either.

Therefore, we aren't going to implement them in gecko.

If you want to affect the top/left margins for an element, use css:

<body style="margin-top: 0; margin-left: 0">

for example.
Status: RESOLVED → CLOSED
This would be an easy 'bug' to fix. (Netscape people: See WRMB 7958.)
Status: CLOSED → REOPENED
Keywords: topembed
Resolution: INVALID → ---
(buster is no longer working on mozilla)
Assignee: buster → attinasi
Status: REOPENED → NEW
jst, hyatt: any idea who could fix this, and/or how?
It's a simple matter of adding code to the BODY tag's MapAttributesInto stuff.
We already do it for some attributes, extending it to work with the other
attributes should be trivial.
could we _please_ include support for this, even though it's not part of html 4.

If mozilla was completely based on standards, it would turnout something like
amaya! :(

But I mean, mozilla should _support_ both standards and non-standards.

Cause otherwise without support for this, sites won't turn out quite as they
should... www.shop-uk.co.uk -- this site isn't such a good example since it
looks nearly fine even without support,

but please, include <body topmargin=*> !
sorry, wrong url above...

www.shop-tv.co.uk
.
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 21 years ago19 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 26788 ***
Reopening bug. I'm going to fix for this, so marking it a dup of a WONTFIX bug
is not right.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Resolution: DUPLICATE → ---
re-accepting
Status: REOPENED → ASSIGNED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla0.9.4
Patch has been attached to map the topmargin and leftmargin to the body in
quirks mode, for compatibility with IE. Seeking reviews (r and sr).
Attached file Testcase
sr=jst
r= alexsavulov
Summary: topmargin="0" leftmargin="0" not applied → [FIX] topmargin="0" leftmargin="0" not applied
Checked into branch and trunk.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 19 years ago19 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
I have to say I don't like the idea of making this quirks mode only.  I think
it's good to keep the list of quirks to a minimum -- and there's no reason
supporting all these extra features breaks standards (any more than all the ones
we already do).
dbaron, does the HTML spec say what should be done with attributes that are NOT
part of the standard? I would think that, if we had a true strict-DTD parser,
these attributes would be thrown out anyway. I'm confused, but you know more
than I about this: is it really 'standards compliant' to honor non-standard
attributes (or tags for that matter)?

I'd be more than happy to remove the quirk-check, I was under the impression
(possibly erroneous) that non-standard attributes, and especially IE-specific
ones :), were not allowed in standard mode.
... or is this the key to understanding your statement?

> ... (any more than all the ones we already do).
Partly, although if we have features that don't exist in standard mode, that
will discourage people from using it.

IMO, quirks mode should be used only when we need to deviate from a standard to
make the web work -- otherwise we should act as though we didn't have multiple
modes.  This will keep the number of differences to a minimum and make our lives
much less confusing.
I opened bug 95530 for further discussion of UnQuirking this. Let's discuss it
there.
Marking verified in the Sept 05th build (2001-09-05-05)
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.