- From: Gregory Houston <vertigo@triberian.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 1997 11:31:30 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
I have noticed a couple benefits of using Netscape's <layer>s tags over using CCS positioning. I hope that you might consider taking these into consideration when you make the next revision of CCS. 1. I don't have to use <table>s with Netscape's <layer>s. With <layer>s if I define a layer as 128 x 128 pixels with a red background, thats exactly what I get. But with CCS, nothing will show up until I put some content in the layer, and then the red background color will only appear around the text. Thus I still have to fool with <table>s if I want to use CCS. And ... thus, I'll be sticking with Netscape's <layer> tag until this is fixed. 2. Netscape has a much better system of dealing with clipping. I have yet to get what I want with CCS positioning. But with <layer>s I have full control to animate the clipping. This is much more powerful than merely animating the width and height of a layer. 3. This part I'm not sure about, but so far I have not been able to add a background image to my CSS layers. I can do so very easily with <layer>s, and those background images can be transparent gifs. Thank you for your time, -- Gregory Houston Triberian Institute of Emotive Education vertigo@triberian.com http://www.triberian.com phone: 816.561.1524 info@triberian.com cellular: 816.807.6660 snail: PO Box 32046 Kansas City MO 64171 ICQ UIN: 840273 "Empowered, impassioned, we have a lust for life insatiable!"
Received on Thursday, 3 July 1997 12:36:53 UTC