Bug 62447 - underline rendering with css1 padding-left is to short
Summary: underline rendering with css1 padding-left is to short
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 50683
Alias: None
Product: konqueror
Classification: Applications
Component: khtml (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Platform: Gentoo Packages Linux
: NOR normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Konqueror Developers
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-08-10 10:56 UTC by Alexander Wigen
Modified: 2003-10-08 23:49 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In:
Sentry Crash Report:

Attachments
Testcase same as url (504 bytes, text/html)
2003-08-10 10:58 UTC, Alexander Wigen 		Details
View All Add an attachment

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Alexander Wigen 2003-08-10 10:56:00 UTC 
Version:            (using KDE KDE 3.1.2)
Installed from:    Gentoo Packages
Compiler:          gcc version 3.2.3 20030422 (Gentoo Linux 1.4 3.2.3-r1, propolice)
OS:          Linux

KHTML fails to underline the whole line of text if the text has been padded with css "padding-left: 100px;"
See testcase: http://www.wigen.net/testcase.html

Seems to be a prosentage thing as very large padding values will leave just a tiny bit of the line underlined.
Comment 1 Alexander Wigen 2003-08-10 10:58:03 UTC 
Created attachment 2203 [details]
Testcase same as url

This is a testcase that shows the bug in 3.1.2 and 3.1.3. I have not tried any
other versions. It's fine in IE, mozilla, opera, galeon
Comment 2 Wolfgang Scheicher 2003-08-10 11:13:39 UTC 
same with kde head from 2003-08-08
Comment 3 Thiago Macieira 2003-08-10 12:18:27 UTC 
Confirmed. This is probably a duplicate of bug 50683, which in turn is marked as a duplicate 
of bug 46224. I'll leave it for a Konqueror developer to decide.
Comment 4 Leo Savernik 2003-10-08 20:09:44 UTC 
Hehe, funny, when you select the text, the underlining is ok. When you deselect it, 
it gets cut again. 
 
Btw, bug 50683 has been unduped, and I'm investigating whether this bug should 
be a dupe of 50683.
Comment 5 Leo Savernik 2003-10-08 23:49:47 UTC 
This *is* a dupe of 50683 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 50683 ***