Terry Friesen wrote: > > Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > > No. It should offset from the containing block, not the parent element. > > For absolutely positioned content the containing block is the nearest > > positioned ancestor or the document root if there are no positioned > > ancestors. > > > > For some reason IE and opera seem to think that a <td> is a containing > > block for positioned content.... it is not. > > That would be true if left and top were set for the positioned element. > In this example they are not set so they would default to "auto". > So the positioned table should be placed as though it were static > positioned,and thus be offset by the parent table. > Is that correct? > > -- > Terry
In Paul's example,if you replace the nested table with a DIV, it behaves as expected. So there is some funky going on with abs positioned tables. Are there any bugs filed on this? -- Terry
