W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 1998

RE: position:fixed ?

From: Chris Wilson <cwilso@MICROSOFT.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 12:07:53 -0700
Message-ID: <C35556591D34D111BB5600805F1961B905090403@RED-MSG-47>
To: "'Sue Jordan'" <sjacct@worldnet.att.net>, www-style@w3.org
And, in fact, 'static' and 'fixed' are completely different in intent.
(BTW, Claus, people at Microsoft helped *write* the spec.)

-Chris Wilson

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Sue Jordan [SMTP:sjacct@worldnet.att.net]
> Sent:	Sunday, August 23, 1998 5:03 PM
> To:	www-style@w3.org
> Subject:	Re: position:fixed ?
> 
> Claus André Färber wrote:
> > 
> > Sue Jordan <sjacct@worldnet.att.net> schrieb:
> > > > I used 'position: fixed'... Do NS4 and IE4 support this thing.
> > >
> > > IE4 supports static, relative and absolute attribute values of the
> > > 'position' property, according to:
> > 
> > Too bad noone as Microsoft was able to read the spec and find out that
> > it is not spelled "static", but "fixed". This means that IE4 does not
> > support fixed position (yet), period.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#propdef-position
> 
> 'position' 
>       Value:  
>                 static | relative | absolute | fixed | inherit
> 
> Er...I think it's spelled both ways, which is a Good Thing, because the
> values are not identical.
> 
> Sue
Received on Monday, 24 August 1998 15:07:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:55 GMT