W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2013

Re: position fixed, z-index and Google Chrome.

From: <lists@m8y.org>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:47:48 -0500 (EST)
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1302051446260.32708@nautilus.m8y.org>
On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, Rune Lillesveen wrote:

> On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 20:07:16 +0100, <lists@m8y.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, James Robinson wrote:
>> 
>> >   On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 10:46 AM, <lists@m8y.org> wrote:
>> >       On Tue, 5 Feb 2013, James Robinson wrote:
>> > 
>> >             I can't tell what sort of layout you are attempting to 
>> >             achieve here, but in general the solution for
>> >             issues like this where you
>> >             want to order descendants of a position:fixed element is to 
>> >             apply the z-index to the position:fixed
>> >             element itself.
>> >             - James
>> >   Can you post an example of that where the rendering is the same as it 
>> >   is now?
>> >   Applying "z-index: 1" to footer appears to make the rendering in WebKit 
>> >   based browsers match Firefox's rendering.
>> 
>> http://m8y.org/tmp/chrome_wtf2.xhtml
>> 
>> Makes Chrome match the other compliant browsers. Doesn't make the resulting 
>> page match the original page.
>
> For instance: set "z-index: 10" on footer and "z-index: 9" on 
> div:nth-child(1) and div:nth-child(2).

http://m8y.org/tmp/chrome_wtf3.xhtml

Glad to have a fix.  Hopefully others don't run into similar issues.  In my case, I always wanted the text on top, and luckily the decorative elements were separate. If they weren't, it'dve been more problematic.  Just for example, if the decorative bits had extended all the way down the sides.  Then making them simultaneously above and below would have been a problem.
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 19:48:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:05 GMT