-
-
Re: Opera div height bug
"Francois du Toit" <francoisdutoit @gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Can someone confirm this:
>http://www.purpleray.za.net/opera_bug.html[/color]
The containing block for div.l is div.bug (*not* div.h since it's
position is static), but div.bug has a height of 100%, which doesn't
compute to a defined height in your example.
I'd file a bug @ Mozilla.
--
Spartanicus
-
Re: Opera div height bug
Ok I think I see what you're saying, but what about this:
In opera you get a red block - and in firefox a blue block. Shouldn't
div.l inherit the height from div.h ?
<style type="text/css"><!--
div.rel {
background-color: red;
position: relative;
left: 10px;
top: 10px;
width: 50%;
}
div.h {
height: 100px;
width: 100%;
}
div.l {
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
background-color: blue;
position: absolute;
left: 0px;
top: 0px;
}
--></style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="rel">
<div class="h">
<div class="l"></div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
Comment
-
Re: Opera div height bug
"Francois du Toit" <francoisdutoit @gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Ok I think I see what you're saying, but what about this:
>
>In opera you get a red block - and in firefox a blue block. Shouldn't
>div.l inherit the height from div.h ?[/color]
No, same reason as with the other example.
--
Spartanicus
Comment
-
Re: Opera div height bug
Ok this did not make sence at first, but this is how I understand it
now. ;)
Refering to my first example (
http://www.purpleray.za.net/opera_bug.html )
The height is not inherited as you said, I misunderstood that. But
according to the specs from
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visude...eight-property :
<percentage>
Specifies a percentage height. The percentage is calculated with
respect to the height of the generated box's containing block. If the
height of the containing block is not specified explicitly (i.e., it
depends on content height), the value is interpreted like 'auto'.
and from
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visude...-block-details :
If the element has 'position: absolute', the containing block is
established by the nearest ancestor with a 'position' other than
'static', in the following way:
So as I understand it - div.l should get it's height from the
containing block established by div.bug and not div.h because div.h is
static.
div.bug's height is a percentage value - but since it's containing
block is not specified it should get it's height from it's content
(like auto).
It seems to me that opera computes the height for div.l from div.l's
content because it's containing block is not specified (div.bug has a
percentage value).
Firefox computes the height for div.l from the containing block of
div.bug. Although it is not specified, it does have a height that it
gets from it's content.
Comment
-
Re: Opera div height bug
"Francois du Toit" <francoisdutoit @gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>It seems to me that opera computes the height for div.l from div.l's
>content because it's containing block is not specified (div.bug has a
>percentage value).[/color]
Correct, Opera does the right thing here.
[color=blue]
>Firefox computes the height for div.l from the containing block of
>div.bug. Although it is not specified, it does have a height that it
>gets from it's content.[/color]
And it's not supposed to do that, Firefox gets this wrong.
--
Spartanicus
Comment
-
Re: Opera div height bug
From:
If the element has 'position: absolute', the containing block is
established by the nearest ancestor with a 'position' other than
'static', in the following way:
1. In the case that the ancestor is block-level, the containing
block is formed by the padding edge of the ancestor.
So I think firefox follows the CSS spec correctly.
More here also:
Comment
-
Re: Opera div height bug
"Francois du Toit" <francoisdutoit @gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>From:
>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visude...-block-details[/color]
CSS 2.0 has effectively been obsoleted, use the 2.1 spec. instead.
[color=blue]
>If the element has 'position: absolute', the containing block is
>established by the nearest ancestor with a 'position' other than
>'static', in the following way:
> 1. In the case that the ancestor is block-level, the containing
>block is formed by the padding edge of the ancestor.
>
>So I think firefox follows the CSS spec correctly.[/color]
You've not presented an argument that would support this conclusion, the
sections that you've quoted from the spec support that Opera is doing
the right thing.
If the height of the ancestor of an absolutely positioned box with
height:100% is undefined, then the height of the absolutely positioned
box is also undefined and resolves to auto, 100% of undefined is
undefined.
The fact that there is another box in between these two boxes with a
defined height as in your example is irrelevant since it's not the
containing block for the absolutely positioned element.
--
Spartanicus
Comment
-
Re: Opera div height bug
I changed the page a bit to make the problem clearer I hope.
The 2.1 spec says roughly the same thing as 2.
If the element (div.l) has 'position: absolute', the containing block
is established by the nearest ancestor (div.bug) with a 'position' of
'absolute', 'relative' or 'fixed', which is the padding edge of the
ancestor (if it is block-level).
The padding edge of div.bug has a border in my example. This should
also be the containing block for div.l .
Comment
-
Re: Opera div height bug
Francois du Toit a écrit :[color=blue]
> Ok this did not make sence at first, but this is how I understand it
> now. ;)
> Refering to my first example (
> http://www.purpleray.za.net/opera_bug.html )
>
> The height is not inherited as you said, I misunderstood that. But
> according to the specs from
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visude...eight-property :
>
> <percentage>
> Specifies a percentage height. The percentage is calculated with
> respect to the height of the generated box's containing block. If the
> height of the containing block is not specified explicitly (i.e., it
> depends on content height), the value is interpreted like 'auto'.
>
> and from
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visude...-block-details :
>
> If the element has 'position: absolute', the containing block is
> established by the nearest ancestor with a 'position' other than
> 'static', in the following way:
>
> So as I understand it - div.l should get it's height from the
> containing block established by div.bug and not div.h because div.h is
> static.
> div.bug's height is a percentage value - but since it's containing
> block is not specified it should get it's height from it's content
> (like auto).
>
> It seems to me that opera computes the height for div.l from div.l's
> content because it's containing block is not specified (div.bug has a
> percentage value).
> Firefox computes the height for div.l from the containing block of
> div.bug. Although it is not specified, it does have a height that it
> gets from it's content.
>[/color]
Opera has had that bug since Opera 7.0 beta 1, some 34 months ago. The
bugfile number is 123305 in Opera's BTS.
Gérard
--
remove blah to email me
Comment
-
Re: Opera div height bug
"Francois du Toit" <francoisdutoit @gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I changed the page a bit to make the problem clearer I hope.[/color]
Nope.
[color=blue]
>The 2.1 spec says roughly the same thing as 2.
>http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.h...-block-details
>
>If the element (div.l) has 'position: absolute', the containing block
>is established by the nearest ancestor (div.bug) with a 'position' of
>'absolute', 'relative' or 'fixed', which is the padding edge of the
>ancestor (if it is block-level).[/color]
You continue to repeat this, but there is no disagreement about div.bug
being the containing block.
You've still not presented an argument for your conclusion that Opera is
wrong.
--
Spartanicus
Comment
-
Re: Opera div height bug
>You continue to repeat this, but there is no disagreement about div.bug[color=blue]
>being the containing block.[/color]
So div.l should have a height of 100% of that containing block which in
my example is 200px.
[color=blue]
>You've still not presented an argument for your conclusion that Opera is
>wrong.[/color]
The height of div.l is not 200px in opera. It is only as heigh as it's
content.
The height of div.l is 200px in FF.
If that's not clear enough, here is more examples:
Comment
-
Re: Opera div height bug
"Francois du Toit" <francoisdutoit @gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>>You continue to repeat this, but there is no disagreement about div.bug
>>being the containing block.[/color]
>
>So div.l should have a height of 100% of that containing block which in
>my example is 200px.[/color]
No it's not, div.bug has an undefined height, again: 100% of undefined
is undefined, hence it resolves to auto. The 200px height is specified
on the *other* div, which is *not* the containing block. If you want
that other div to be the containing block you have to set it's position
property to something else than static.
[color=blue][color=green]
>>You've still not presented an argument for your conclusion that Opera is
>>wrong.[/color]
>
>The height of div.l is not 200px in opera. It is only as heigh as it's
>content.
>The height of div.l is 200px in FF.[/color]
Still no argument, all you are saying is that FF does it differently, so
Opera must be wrong.
I'm beginning to suspect that you are trolling.
--
Spartanicus
Comment
-
Re: Opera div height bug
Spartanicus <invalid@invali d.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> You've still not presented an argument for your conclusion that
> Opera is wrong.[/color]
The crucial point is "height: 100%;" in div.bug.
Francois thinks it means "100% of its natural height" (inward
direction). Which would be 200px in the example.
Whereas you say the percentage is to be taken wrt to div.bug's parent
element (outward direction). And as its parent has height:auto,
div.bug's height is auto. Correct?
I think your interpretation of the spec. is the correct
one. Percentage height/width is relative to the parent, not the
content.
An example of the percentage calculations are the typical menus.
ul li(width:10em) a(width:100%)
Bye,
Martin
Comment
-
Re: Opera div height bug
Gérard Talbot <newsblahgroup@ gtalbot.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Opera has had that bug since Opera 7.0 beta 1, some 34 months
> ago. The bugfile number is 123305 in Opera's BTS.[/color]
Did you get feedback? Do they agree with you it is an incorrect interpretation?
Bye,
Martin
Comment
Comment