Bryce Fields wrote: > On 4/21/06, Zoe M. Gillenwater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Adam McGrath wrote: >> >>> the only other quick fix i could recomend is to try forcing the parent >>> element #content, to "have layout", (eg position: relative;), that >>> usually fixes a multitude of peekaboo weirdness's >>> >>> >> position: relative does not give an element layout in IE6. position: >> absolute does, but not relative. However, relative positioning is >> another one of IE's magic bullets (unrelated to layout). It will often >> fix problems that setting layout cannot. At other times, it will cause >> bugs, so only use it when necessary. >> > > Zoe, you read my mind. After reading the article on hasLayout that > people kindly provided, I saw the part about position:relative not > forcing an element to have layout and was curious as to 1) why it > works anyway and 2) would it indeed to be better to go w/ a solution > like the Holly Hack, the Underscore Hack, or something else that > forces an element's hasLayout to be true in IE. I mean, the > position:relative is working and there are currently no ill side > effects, but why poke the IE bear w/ short stick. >
If it works, use it. If I had the choice between using position: relative or hasLayout, I would go with relative, because it usually doesn't need to be hidden from anything else, and has less implications on the way the element behaves than layout does. But if either option fixes your problem in this case, it's really up to you. Zoe -- Zoe M. Gillenwater Design Services Manager UNC Highway Safety Research Center http://www.hsrc.unc.edu ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
