93396 - Table is laid out incorrectly

Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME

(Core :: Layout: Tables, defect)

Description

[Phil Randal]

From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.3) Gecko/20010801
BuildID:    2001080110

Mozilla 0.9.3 doesn't render the Code Red infection table at www.incidents.org
correctly

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Browse to url http://www.incidents.org
2.
3.

Actual Results:  Table looks a right mess :-(

Expected Results:  Should have laid out table properly

Works in Netscape 4.78, IE 5.5

Comment 1

[Jess Collicott]

I see the same problem on Win 2000, 9.3 release. However, you may want to make
sure the page is well-formed. For instance, the nested table between lines 30
and 38 is missing an openening <td>:

30:     <td align="right" height="55"><table border="0">
31:       <tr>
32: <!-- IGNORE -->
33:         
34: <a href="http://www.incidents.org/jobs/joblist.php"><img
src="http://www.incidents.org/graphics/jobsbanner.GIF" width="467" height="57" border="1"></a>	
35: <!-- /IGNORE -->
36:         </td>
37:       </tr>
38:     </table>


You can check for these errors using the W3C's validator
(http://validator.w3.org). Here is a link to test this page in specific:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.incidents.org&doctype=HTML+4.01+Transitional&ss=

Comment 2

[GavinS]

I'll attach a simplified test case in a mo, which does validate, apart from the
lack of ALT tags.

I see 2 problems:

1) Either Mozilla ignores the specified width (288) for the 2nd column in the
3rd row -- or -- the other widths in all other columns take precedence, and
mozilla tries to fit the table in a whole page, so the 2nd column is not wide
enough. (Netscape doesn't try and fit it on one page (or tries, and fails))

2) Even if you comment out most of the columns on the right of the table, so
there is more than enough room on the page for column 2 (the suspect one),
either the width is not correct, or the rendering of the images is not correct.
The width is specified as 288, and there are 24 images, each one has a width 10,
and a border of 1, so, theoretically, they all should fit in horizontally, next
to one another, into the table cell, and show the nice graph. Mozilla doesn't
fit them all in, hence the mess :(

Comment 3

[GavinS]

Attachment: simplified test case

Comment 4

[GavinS]

Attachment: you'll also need this 1pixel gif in the same dir as the html file

Comment 5

[Aaron Kaluszka]

I don't see the problem
Win2K/2001080203-trunk

Comment 6

[Phil Randal]

The page has been changed, so latecomers won't see the effect

Comment 7

[Christopher Hoess (gone)]

Adding testcase keyword.

Comment 8

[Christopher Hoess (gone)]

Confirming, recent Linux CVS build.

Comment 9

[Randy Slemko]

I've created a simple html file that demonstrates this problem.  The file
validates on the w3c validator.

http://www3.telus.net/rwslemko/TableTest.html
This page displays the table at 150px in NS 4.78, IE5, Opera5, Amaya.  Mozilla
expands the width somewhat.  If you remove the second image in the second row it
displays fine.  I tested with:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4+) Gecko/20010922

Comment 10

[Randy Slemko]

Looking at this further it appears that Mozilla increases the width by the sum
of the two image widths.  This is better deomonstrated with:

http://www3.telus.net/rwslemko/TableTest2.html

In this example, I've changed it to a 100px table with only 100px images. 
Again, if the second image in the second row is removed, it displays fine.

Comment 11

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

I think the original problem is working now. There is a (quirk mode) problem with
http://www3.telus.net/rwslemko/TableTest2.html though. If I change to strict
layout it works as expected (as in IE6/NS4.7/Opera5). There seems to be a Mozilla
quirk interfering with proper layout of this testcase.

Comment 12

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

Attachment: Testcase - TableTest2.html (STRICT)

Comment 13

[Mats Palmgren (inactive)]

WORKSFORME, build 2001-10-06-10-trunk on Windows 98 SE.
Maybe the patch for bug 101674 fixed this one too.