From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:0.9.3) Gecko/20010801
Row of buttons along top of page is displayed incorrectly. They are
variable-sized eg. 10% of windth, 14% of width. Mozilla handles this incorrectly.
Steps to Reproduce:
2. Compare with other browsers
3. Email me if you don't see what I'm talking about
Actual Results: The images are scrunched in mozilla.
Expected Results: Images should not be scrunched.
Confirming, simplified test case to follow.
This only happens if the images are inside links. It looks like, in that
instance, the percentage width being used for each subsequent image is being
calculated as a fraction of the remaining page width, rather than total page width.
Created attachment 47877 [details]
testcase, html file
Created attachment 47879 [details]
testcase, gif image to go with html - save as b1.gif
is this still happening in recent builds?
Comment on attachment 47879 [details]
testcase, gif image to go with html - save as b1.gif
Yes, I'm still seeing it in 2001091508 win32
Apologies for the spam, should have checked this before adding the last comment.
Still present in 2001092403, win98SE, also.
*** Bug 101926 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please see http://www.usahistory.com/noframe.htm for another testcase from my
duped bug 101926. The screenshot there is attachment 51055 [details]. This is 4xp and
occurs on Linux as well.
------- Additional Comments From Christopher Hoess 2001-09-27 08:33 -------
The HTML 4.01 spec says of percentage image widths "Note that lengths expressed
as percentages are based on the horizontal or vertical space currently
available," a rather ambiguous definition. However, CSS width (which applies to
replaced elements) says that percentages are calculated in terms of the
containing block. Since HTML width="" is supposed to be replaced by the CSS
equivalent, the change (fix?) proposed here makes sense...
*** Bug 115544 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
to attinasi -- this is not table-specific
*** Bug 119581 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Nominating; it should be an easy fix.
Bug 119581 also has a testcase w/ no table.
Moving Mozilla 1.01 bugs to 'future' milestone with priority P1
I will be pulling bugs from 'future' milestones when scheduling later work.
It does not have to be within links. Try www.leifjensen.com. This works always
(almost always, might need a reload) in NS 4.77/4.78. I can't make it load the
picture at all in any Mozilla 0.9.x/1.0x nor NS6.x.
Konqueror 2.2.2 loads it nicely.
mozilla1.0 -> mozilla1.01
There's a testcase with no tables in my dup of this. We're definitely laying
this out incorrectly.
I was hoping this bug was fixed in Mozilla 1.0rc2, but it's still there.
I noticed a comment that this was only within links. I'm not exactly sure about
that phrase, but I have it also with: <img src=..... width=80% height=80%>. (Try
Created attachment 87711 [details] [diff] [review]
Okay, this patch "works" but I'm thinking it is a little late in the game to
fix it here (though I may be wrong).
So I've debugged this last night and it appears that when we create our
nsHTMLReflowState for an image frame, we're already passing in the wrong
computed width of the containing block. The correct fix IMO would be probably
in nsLineLayout::ReflowFrame() around here:
or possibly before we get that far. When we get the containing block's width
there, it keeps shrinking every time. That's about as far as I got last night.
I'll try investigating more later on.
The real problem is what buster introduced in revision 3.81 of nsLineLayout.cpp.
We need to figure out what he was really trying to fix.
I suspect it was for bug 38396 / bug 39901.
So bug 38396 is really a bug about one of the fundamental flaws in the layout
engine -- that we try to do min-size and pref-size calculations using the same
Reflow method that does layout. It looks like buster fixed it first by breaking
percentage widths on images, and then by implementing them incorrectly. Not
that that really helped (see bug 115688 / bug 107873).
Comment on attachment 87711 [details] [diff] [review]
This is going to break stuff like absolutely positioned elements, or anything
that really *needs* to pass in the computed height/width rather than letting
them be calculated (or is nsLineLayout::ReflowFrame the only caller of that
*** Bug 159666 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
attinasi->dbaron, since he produced a patch
Nominating for 1.3
milestone -> ---
I didn't produce a patch. I marked a patch as "needs work".
Oops, misread. Feel free to reassign. Attinasi seemed a bad choice...
->block & inline
I think I want this, actually.
*** Bug 110358 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Reassigning as dupe seems fine, but comments
are not being copied across, is this a bugzilla bug?
anyway here are my comments copied across:
is work on this proceeding??
I was hoping to roll out a site using % and was just wondering...
looks damn silly your way.
*** Bug 209065 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
It turns out that the IMG or IFRAME doesn't need to be inside an anchor to cause
the bug. It also happens if it's simply inside a <span>...</span>
Yes, the bug summary already notes that the image needs to be within an inline.
Congratulations !! Mozilla 1.4 works with my homepage placing a relative
picture as it should.
*** Bug 221398 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 135953 [details] [diff] [review]
I think this is the right fix, and it doesn't regress bug 38396.
Comment on attachment 135953 [details] [diff] [review]
Is there a reason we no longer need to pass "reason" the the new reflow state?
Oh, right, I added |reason| back.
Created attachment 135974 [details] [diff] [review]
could somebody check this in, if it works?
It will get checked in when the tree opens for 1.7alpha. Patience, young
Fix checked in to trunk, 2003-12-18 21:41 -0800.
working fine, BuildID 2003121823
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.7a) Gecko/20031218
checked with http://www.peepo.com/w3/svg-jpg/svg-jpg.html failed yesterday, ok now
Is it too risky to fix this in the branch?
perhaps I should have put this on the branch a few weeks ago, but I'd rather not
at this point. We've shipped many releases with this and one more won't hurt
too much. It will be fixed in 1.7.
anyone figure out if this fix cause the regression in
It probably did, but our current rendering looks correct (and the old rendering
Could someone who was involved with this bug please take a look at bug 239778
and let us know if the fix for this bug caused the regression in that one?
It began at the same time this one was fixed, and I can't find a better
candidate for the cause.