W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2009

Re: Proposal for overflow painting order

From: Benjamin <benjo316@hotpop.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:51:40 -0600
Message-ID: <421e3c790902051051p822df15gaee5be03408ea387@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, "www-style@w3.org List" <www-style@w3.org>, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Benjamin <benjo316@hotpop.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> I'm not an expert on the overflow painting rules, but the current UA
> >> default behavior makes sense to me, and more importantly, *can't be
> >> reproduced easily through other methods.*.  On the other hand, putting
> >> it unilaterally over or under the overlapping content can be easily
> >> done through z-index.  It's not an absolutely ideal solution, but
> >> it'll work for the vast majority of cases, and is very simple.
> >
> > I'm not sure why, but as shown by the attached html, simply using z-index
> > does not seem to create the desired effect. I cannot get the first div
> over
> > the second, and I cannot get the fourth div over the fifth; even if I
> > specify a z-index on all six divs, it still does not work.
>
> It's because z-index has no effect on position:static elements, which
> of course those <div>s are by default.  Make the 2nd and 5th <div>s
> position:relative, and your example works.
>
> ~TJ
>

Ah, I forgot you said that earlier. Thanks for the correction.
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 18:52:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:16 GMT