A thing that people should keep in mind is that position:relative is related
to the stack order, not to the hasLayout property. Simply put, an element
does _not_ disappear, but is actually covered by the parent/ancestor
background. this happens also in other contexts. for example:
1. floats with n
This may help explain some issues people have with IE and relative
positioning on floated links:
http://positioniseverything.net/explorer/ie-listbug.html
Best of luck,
Andy Vaughn
Breakaway Web Design, LLC
http://www.breakawaywd.com/
__
Rick Pasotto wrote:
> Is my understanding correct that putting:
>
> div#name1 { position: relative; }
>
> in the css file should have absolutely no effect on ?
>
> If that is correct, why then does IE6 move the div? Does it make a
> difference that the block I'm dealing with is a fieldset?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Pasotto
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 10:56 AM
> To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
> Subject: Re: [css-d] relative positioning
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:44:31PM +
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 04:47:41PM -0400, vincent pollard wrote:
> why does the element need this positioning? for z-index or something?
It's a form and it's the fieldsets that have the positioning. I'm using
the techniques shown in http://www.sitepoint.com/article/fancy-form-design-css
> 2008/5/
On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:44:31PM +0100, Alan K Baker wrote:
> According to my books position:relative is to give a point of
> reference to any absolute positioned elements inside it. That's always
> been my understanding and it's always worked.
>
> "CSS The Missing Manual" says: Relative - A rel
why does the element need this positioning? for z-index or something?
2008/5/28 Rick Pasotto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is my understanding correct that putting:
>
> div#name1 { position: relative; }
>
> in the css file should have absolutely no effect on ?
>
> If that is correct, why then does IE6 m
According to my books position:relative is to give a point of reference to any
absolute positioned elements inside it. That's always been my understanding and
it's always worked.
"CSS The Missing Manual" says: Relative - A relatively placed element is placed
relative to its current position in
EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Wilson
> Sent: den 29 augusti 2007 09:26
> To: 'CSS-D'
> Cc: 'Philippe Wittenbergh'
> Subject: Re: [css-d] relative positioning inside absolute
> positioned element - why not percentage for top?
>
> Just to close this issue
Just to close this issue off, I can now report that the latest
working draft of the CSS 2.1 spec has actually solved the problem
I mentioned.
Compliant browsers should now support percentages on relative
positioning of an element even when the parent's size is dependent
on the element's size.
Th
Thanks again for your input and for helping me understand this!
> > But extending this reasoning to the offset properties, like
> > left and top, seems unfair as they cannot cause any layout
> > recursion. The child height and width may cause recursion
> > as the parent element may base its ow
On May 11, 2007, at 2:51 AM, Mike Wilson wrote:
> But extending this reasoning to the offset properties, like left and
> top, seems unfair as they cannot cause any layout recursion. The child
> height and width may cause recursion as the parent element may base
> its
> own size on the child siz
Thanks for your insights Philippe!
> > Or are you saying that the height of the containing block used for
> > positioning will be different from the calculated size of the actual
> > element? This doesn't seem to be the case as the other, absolutely
> > pos'd, child DIV finds bottom:0 nicely.
>
>
[Forwarding Philippe's reply to the list]
On May 10, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Mike Wilson wrote:
> Or are you saying that the height of the containing block used for
> positioning will be different from the calculated size of the actual
> element? This doesn't seem to be the case as the other, absolutel
Hi Philippe,
I have put a new test file on
http://lahall.se/test/test-top-percentage.html
> How much offset for top do you actually expect ?
Half (50%) of the DIV's height (both DIVs have the same height as the
outer DIV adapts to the inner DIV's size).
> CSS 2.1, 9.3.2 Box offsets
> For 'top'
On May 8, 2007, at 6:58 AM, Mike Wilson wrote:
> I have a problem with relative positioning, containing block,
> and percentages.
>
> I have an absolutely positioned outer DIV, and a relatively
> positioned inner DIV. My goal is to shift the inner DIV
> halfway to the left and up, using percentag
On 1/24/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How do I get an element (copyright statement in this instance) to always
> be positioned in the lower right hand corner of a DIV that is not absolutely
> positioned? In this instance my DIV starts right at the top of the page and
> the ma
Jason Manaigre wrote:
regarding http://test.iisd.org/revamp2/
> Hi Zoe, thanks for the info, works great BUT when the menu is clicked
> on, the hidden div opens, but pushes down the content, I want this
> window to simply float above the main content..
>
> Any ideas?
>
Float moves content to t
Hi Zoe, thanks for the info, works great BUT when the menu is clicked
on, the hidden div opens, but pushes down the content, I want this
window to simply float above the main content..
Any ideas?
>
You're using visibility: hidden to hide the div, which makes it
invisible, but still lets it
Zoe M. Gillenwater wrote:
> You're using visibility: hidden to hide the div, which makes it
> invisible, but still lets it take up space. Use display: none instead.
> However, you set it to display by default and use JavaScript on page
> load that hides it.
Sorry, that sentence should have sai
Jason Manaigre wrote:
> http://test.iisd.org/revamp/
>
> The issue is with the 'Our Knowledge' link it turns on a hidden div
> using JavaScript.
>
> The problem is, it takes up all space in the regular document flow,
> which is no good. I just want it to float.
>
You're using visibility: hidden
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Seehouse
> Sent: Friday, 16 June 2006 3:08 AM
> To: Brendan Grossman
> Cc: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
> Subject: Re: [css-d] Relative positioning and widths
>
> O
On 6/14/06, Brendan Grossman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> Is it possible to have floating divs side-by-side without the width
> specified or with just one set explicitly?
Yes.
> For example I have two columns...
> Left hand side I want to set explicity, ie. 15em
> Right hand side,
On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Brendan Grossman wrote:
> Is it possible to have floating divs side-by-side without the width
> specified or with just one set explicitly?
>
> For example I have two columns...
>
> Left hand side I want to set explicity, ie. 15em
>
> Right hand side, I want it to fill
Brendan Grossman wrote:
> Here's sample code I'm using...
>
> #left {
> float: left;
> width: 15em;
> }
>
> #right {
> float: left;
> }
>
>
>
This sample code does not drop in Firefox.
Ingo
--
http://www.satzansatz.de/css.html
___
Your best bet would be to use absolute positioning and top/right/bottom/left
to specify. Example:
-- this
will put the image on the bottom right hand side of the page, and still
scroll.
Or you can try this
-- this
will put the image on the bottom right hand side of the page, and it still
st
Bruce,
On Feb 7, 2006, at 2:53 AM, Bruce MacKay wrote:
> I'm seeking help on two problems: positioning of material within a
> wrapper and achieving 100% height in pages with "short" content.
>
> The following pages ... In both, I'm having problems in
> positioning the content to start 10-20 px be
On 6/30/05, Mark Leder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks, that worked in Firefox, still shoved to the right on IE6. I'm
> looking for a hack to solve that one.
>
I know this will sound silly...but is IE6 in quirks mode? You have to
be careful about your doctype at the top of the page, or it w
Leder
Subject: RE: [css-d] Relative Positioning
From: "Mark Leder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>http://admin.evokenet.com/homeComponents/main.cfm
> I can't get the menu centered left to
>>right in relation to the "clientName" ID just above it.
Try -
From: "Mark Leder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>http://admin.evokenet.com/homeComponents/main.cfm
> I can't get the menu centered left to
>>right in relation to the "clientName" ID just above it.
Try -
#Layer1 {
position: absolute;
top: 3px;
left: 50%; /* default left value when not specified is 0.
Here's the link:
http://admin.evokenet.com/homeComponents/main.cfm
-Original Message-
From: jeremy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 10:08 AM
To: Mark Leder; css list
Subject: Re: [css-d] Relative Positioning
do you have a link to the site?
Mark Leder
do you have a link to the site?
Mark Leder wrote:
Hi all,
I've really been struggling with this. Trying to have a large flash menu
layered atop other content on a page. I've been able to successfully
z-index it so the drop down menus appear over top of other content at a
lower z-index, but I
32 matches
Mail list logo
