Go to http://www.arez.com/fs using Netscape 4.51 or IE4 / IE5 and look at the top navigation bar, which consists of a table and a cell for each GIF file. notice that there is no spacing between the images in the cells and the bottom of the table. Now go to the same URL using Mozilla 5.0 (I used the 4/30 build). Notice that Mozilla 5.0 puts in 6 extra pixels of spacing from the cell graphics to the bottom of the table compared to other browsers. Please also check the image located at http://www.wctc.net/~drtree/mozbug.gif for a side-by-side comparison. Who is right? The code for the table is: <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%" bgcolor="#000000"> <tr> <td colspan="2"><a href="index.html"><img src="freshleft1.gif" alt="Fresh Software home" border="0" width="94" height="38"></a><a href="snoop"><img src="navbar2/snoop.gif" alt="SuperSnoop" border="0" width="32" height="38"></a><a href="xns"><img src="navbar2/xns.gif" alt="X-NetStat" border="0" width="30" height="38"></a><a href="sentry"><font color="#000000" size="5" face="Arial"><strong><img src="navbar2/sentry.gif" alt="Sentry" border="0" width="36" height="38"></strong></font></a><a href="topten"><font color="#000000" size="5" face="Arial"><strong><img src="navbar2/topten.gif" alt="TopTen list maker" border="0" width="34" height="38"></strong></font></a><a href="antigen"><font color="#000000" size="5" face="Arial"><strong><img src="navbar2/antigen.gif" alt="AntiGën - Back Orifice cleaner" border="0" width="33" height="38"></strong></font></a><a href="busjack"><font color="#000000" size="5" face="Arial"><strong><img src="navbar2/busjack.gif" alt="BusJack - NetBus remover" border="0" width="35" height="38"></strong></font></a><a href="pmagic"><font color="#000000" size="5" face="Arial"><strong><img src="navbar2/pmagic.gif" alt="Port Magic" border="0" width="36" height="38"></strong></font></a><font color="#000000" size="5" face="Arial"><strong><img src="navbar2/space1.gif" width="40" height="38"></strong></font><a href="prod"><font color="#000000" size="5" face="Arial"><strong><img src="navbar2/prod.gif" alt="Complete list of products" border="0" width="75" height="38"></strong></font></a><a href="dev"><font color="#000000" size="5" face="Arial"><strong><img src="navbar2/dev.gif" alt="Projects in development" border="0" width="51" height="38"></strong></font></a><font color="#000000" size="5" face="Arial"><strong><img src="navbar2/fade1.gif" width="64" height="38"></strong></font><a href="links"><font color="#000000" size="5" face="Arial"><strong><img src="navbar2/links.gif" alt="Links to worthy websites" border="0" width="43" height="38"></strong></font></a><a href="music"><font color="#000000" size="5" face="Arial"><strong><img src="navbar2/music.gif" alt="Music reviews" border="0" width="26" height="38"></strong></font></a><a href="contact.html"><font color="#000000" size="5" face="Arial"><strong><img src="navbar2/contact.gif" alt="Contact Us" border="0" width="24" height="38"></strong></font></a></td> </tr> </table>

Moving to M7.

Moving to M9.

This '6 extra pixels' is a result of bug #5821 "{compat} Nav4 vs CSS2 line box model" -- it's not a table bug; it's the calculation of line-height and the vertical alignment of the contents of the TD. That is unless ChrisK sees some other problem for this table (so I won't mark it duplicate).

By the way, add this CSS to the test table above and watch the gap disappear: <style> img {vertical-align: text-bottom;} </style> Although I can't actually load the IMG from the original site right now (not responding). And to completely eliminate the gap use this CSS: <style> img {vertical-align: text-bottom;} font {vertical-align: text-bottom;} a {vertical-align: text-bottom;} strong {vertical-align: text-bottom;} </style>

I still think it's a matter of Mozilla not rendering it correctly - it displays properly / in uniform on ALL other browsers. So what I'm saying it don't close this bug on "you have bad html code in there".

Sorry. I wasn't implying that it should be closed because "you have bad html code in there". In fact, there is nothing syntactically wrong with the HTML in the test case. I agree that non-CSS pages shouldn't _require_ the addition of CSS in order to make them work. I merely presented the CSS as a way to demonstrate/verify that this is the same bug as bug #5821 --- which is well on its way to achieving all-time 'most reported' bug status ;)

3jrgm: What about bug 991? That has at least as many dups as bug 5821! Anyway. This is definitely a duplicate of bug 5821. Marking as such. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 5821 ***

Yes: bug #991 and bug #5821 are neck and neck. But, bug #5821 has such an "I don't even have to have had my first three cups of coffee in the morning, and I can still see it" manifestation that it's threatening to pull away from the pack ;-)

Verified Dup