Bug 19646 – CSS style "display:none;" ignored by "object" and "embed" HTML tags

• Component: CSS
• Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE

[Thom]

The "display: none;" style has no visible effect on either the "object" tag or the "embed" tag. This has been true for many versions, ever since Safari 1, and I've sent in a bug report through Safari way back then. As far as I've noticed, this behavior has not changed during each version since then, so likely these tags have never complied with the style "display: none;".

The reason I've noticed it not working is because I've created a custom CSS style sheet and have selected it within Safari's preferences, and the content within these tags have continued to be displayed every version. I have also used a reduced style sheet to test only the "object" or "embed" tags with the style "display: none;" when visiting various web pages.

I haven't found any documentation suggesting "object" and "embed" tags should be exceptional and ignore "display:none;", so I"m pretty sure this isn't standard behavior.

I've tried using "display: none;" within the tag, within the document, and in a separate style sheet document, but the tags will not disappear. I've tried using IDs and classes, and also referencing by attributes such as width and height, but nothing will get an "object" tag or an "embed" tag to acknowledge and comply with the style.

Have noticed <a http="https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15081">bug# 15081</a> describes the problem (different OS version) and provides a suitable reduction. However, the "Plug-ins" category doesn't seem appropriate since this really seems something do with the CSS style not being applied.

[Thom]

At the moment, this is r34604

[Thom]

Created attachment 21804 [details]
reduction: object with inline style

This is copied from bug# 15081 .

[Thom]

Comment on attachment 21804 [details]
reduction: object with inline style

<object style="display: none;" classid="clsid:02BF25D5-8C17-4B23-BC80-D3488ABDDC6B" width="480" height="376" codebase="http://www.apple.com/qtactivex/qtplugin.cab#version=6,0,2,0">
  <param name="src" value="http://movies.apple.com/movies/us/apple/getamac/apple-getamac-genius_480x376.mov">
</object>

[Thom]

Comment on attachment 21804 [details]
reduction: object with inline style

arrg! Talk about embarrassing. I can't delete the attachments.

[Thom]

Created attachment 21805 [details]
reduction: object with style attribute

[Thom]

Created attachment 21806 [details]
expanded test case

A few possibilities for applying style from within the head of an HTML document. Tried tag name, class, and width and height attributes.

[Thom]

Created attachment 21807 [details]
style in head declares any object tag to not be displayed

reduced case:
object { display:none; }

[Thom]

Created attachment 21808 [details]
reduced case: object of specific size to not display

reduced case with specific size attributes:
 
object[width="480"][height="376"] { display:none; }

[Thom]

Created attachment 21809 [details]
reduced case: specific class to not display

reduced case: a specific class should not display, object is assigned to class

.hidethis { display:none; }

[Thom]

Created attachment 21810 [details]
reduced case: object of specific class to not display

reduced case: object of a specific class is specified to not display.

object.hidethis { display:none; }

Thanks for taking the time to create and post the test cases! Even if you think bug 15081 has the wrong component, having a second bug on the exact same issue does not help.

[Alexey Proskuryakov]

There's also bug 10234. I think it's confusing to have three bugs talking about what's almost the same issue.

[Thom]

(In reply to comment #11)
> Thanks for taking the time to create and post the test cases! Even if you think
> bug 15081 has the wrong component, having a second bug on the exact same issue
> does not help.
> 

Sorry, your right, it does seem like a duplicate. I wasn't sure whether reporting for a different system version mattered, and what differences needed to be tracked. Also wasn't too sure what could and couldn't be changed, but I've figured out few things about this reporting system now that I've tried it a little bit.

[Thom]

(In reply to comment #12)
> There's also bug 10234. I think it's confusing to have three bugs talking about
> what's almost the same issue.
> 

Ah, missed that one when reviewing other reports. Yes, I believe that is the same thing, too.

I'm just not sure how to combine these three, especially since bug# 15081 is marked as InRadar. (Don't want to mess this up further.)

[Alexey Proskuryakov]

To avoid further confusion, it is best to keep the bug that has a Radar twin.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15081 ***