Re: Proposal for overflow painting order

Tab Atkins Jr. 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.
>
>
>   
I think you've missed the point.

position:relative is moving the element onto completely different stack 
order.

All position:relative elements will move it on *top* of canvas layer. No 
matter what value of z-index it has.
Thus you cannot move positioned element underneath its static neighbors 
by using z-index.

But style="margin: -10px 0" when applied to static element moves its top 
side over its siblings [on canvas] and its bottom
underneath its siblings [that are on the canvas layer].  A bit strange 
structure of space/time continuum if to speak about intuition.

Cheers,

--
Andrew Fedoniouk.

http://terrainformatica.com