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 13:33:59 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0902051133y3cd52b4aqea82f2845ba34de8@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: benjo316@gmail.com, "www-style@w3.org List" <www-style@w3.org>, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk
<news@terrainformatica.com> wrote:
> 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.

You may want to try some examples yourself, because this is incorrect.
 Giving an element position:relative, and nothing else, will indeed
put it above its static neighbors by default.  However, a negative
z-index on it will push it underneath its static neighbors.  There is
interop on this.

> 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.

This makes complete sense.  Elements later in the document order are
later in the paint order as well.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 19:34:35 GMT

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