Iorhael wrote:
> Okay, the position: relative and not the z-index is what did the
> trick...
Position relative (or absolute) starts stacking, and is needed for
'z-index' to have any effect.
> And I have a general question on z-indexing...I see alot of really
> high numbers used for z-indexing and I'm curious as to why...I
> thought you only needed to use as many numbers as there were of
> elements that you are stacking. I used a z-index of 1 here and it
> worked just fine.
You're right - z-index values only need to be _large enough_ for the
stacking in question. Stacking 5 elements with values of '1 - 5 - 3 - 4
- 2' is fine. Using extreme values doesn't help one bit - according to
standards.
Note that IE/win may throw in a stacking-surprise in some cases, so both
the use of 'position: relative', and subsequently the 'z-index' value,
should be looked at closely if something doesn't work as expected in
that browser.
Other browsers have weak spots and may stack differently too. Guess
that's why there are so many 'trial and error'-attempts with extreme
'z-index' values around. I suggest 'moderation' :-)
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
