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

Re: Proposal for overflow painting order

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:45:28 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0902051045y7a9b050enc5cb6f6144284abd@mail.gmail.com>
To: benjo316@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 12:33 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.

Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 18:53:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:24 UTC