Sending this to the list also, as some may actually read the archives.
Jehangir Larry wrote:
> I would like you to explain the 'static' issue a bit more. This is
> one area that truly befuddles me.
'position: static' is the default-value, but since 'position: relative'
is used on :hover I had to declare 'static' to make sure it kicked in in
IE.
IE has a tendency to "lock up" in :hover-state under certain conditions.
What 'static' does is simply to tell IE that 'nothing is positioned
here' when the mouse-pointer leaves the link. That makes IE release the
absolute positioned large image and hide it. I won't try to explain IE's
erratic behavior without the fix - it's a bug.
IE also has severe problems/bugs when we try to stack absolute
positioned elements above relative positioned ones.
'position: static' has no effect on stacking - it's always the bottom or
default level and any z-index is ignored. Declaring 'position: relative'
will lift the element - link - up one stacking-level.
Therefore, the link that you :hover on will get 'position: relative' and
will automatically be stacked above all non-hovered links. The absolute
positioned large image will be lifted with its own :hovered link, and
the result is visually perfect stacking.
I often use this 'switch stacking on :hover' method for multi-line
menus with drop downs, as it ensures correct stacking in all major
browsers - not just IE.
Hope that all made some sense - despite the fact that we're in part
dealing with nonsensical bugs :-)
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
IE7 information -- 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/
