Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 996361
Draft watermark is displayed in front of content instead of behind
Last modified: 2013-09-04 02:20:42 EDT
Description of problem:
Once a document is published on http://documentation-devel.engineering.redhat.com/ the DRAFT watermark is displayed in front of the content instead of behind it.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Build a document from content spec containing Type = Book-Draft
2. Publish the document to documentation-devel.engineering.redhat.com
3. Open the document. Example - http://documentation-devel.engineering.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_JBoss_Data_Services/6/html/Development_Guide_Reference_Material/index.html
The DRAFT watermark appears in front of the content, obscuring it from view.
The DRAFT watermark is supposed to sit behind the content.
I wonder if the css draft style needs a z-index to indicate a lower stack order. See http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/pr_pos_z-index.asp.
HSS-QE has reviewed and declined this request. QE for this bug will be handled by IED.
-body.draft > div.book:before
+body.draft > div.book
Deleted all #main rules.
ab66ec2..7ab41ab HEAD -> devel
The local HTML-single build on my laptop showed the "Draft" stamp behind the text, as it should be.
However, when I did a publican package (publican package --binary --lang en-US)
and installed the package locally, (yum localinstall /tmp/rpm/noarch/Red_Hat_OpenStack-Getting_Started_Guide-3-web-en-US-1.0-39.fc19.noarch.rpm)
only the .PDF had the watermark.
The html versions showed no watermark.
The version I have is:
Rudi, see Comment 6 and show me the path through the darkness.
(In reply to Zac Dover from comment #7)
> Rudi, see Comment 6 and show me the path through the darkness.
The builds you've posted under Book/tmp/en-US/html/ and Book/tmp/en-US/html-single/ look like local builds, which doesn't test the bug here -- what do books look like when installed from RPMs on a site. What you saw on your localhost, however, verifies that the bug is fixed.
However, it looks like a new bug might have been created in the PDF :(
Can you take a look please Jeff?