Re: position: relative

http://www.blue-sky.co.uk/main.css

#navbar has 'position: relative' but to what end? Does 'position:
relative' have a bearing on the absolutely positioned descendents of
#navbar?

My understanding:

Block elements declared as relative or absolute, position themselves
relative to the closest enclosing element that is not statically
positioned.

So, if div-a is relative and encloses div-b, where div-b has
left, right top or bottom adjustments, means div-b will be
adjusted relative to div-a, rather than the body or some other
div that encloses div-a.

So, declaring div-a as relative may have more to do with positioning
its DOM children, than about positioning itself.

On 2007-12-08, salmobytes <Sandy.Pittendrigh (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

http://www.blue-sky.co.uk/main.css

#navbar has 'position: relative' but to what end? Does 'position:
relative' have a bearing on the absolutely positioned descendents of
#navbar?

My understanding:

Block elements declared as relative or absolute, position themselves
relative to the closest enclosing element that is not statically
positioned.

Almost. Relatively-positioned elements (block or not) have just the same
containing blocks as static ones-- i.e. just the nearest block ancestor.

It's only absolutely positioned ones whose CB is the nearest absolute or
fixed ancestor.

On Dec 10, 3:30 pm, Ben C <spams... (AT) spam (DOT) eggs> wrote:

Almost. Relatively-positioned elements (block or not) have just the same
containing blocks as static ones-- i.e. just the nearest block ancestor.

It's only absolutely positioned ones whose CB is the nearest absolute or
fixed ancestor.

Ok. That makes more sense. I'll have to learn to keep
my participation to questions only. I seem to know enough to get
it almost right. Which is perhaps worse than wrong.

On 2007-12-11, salmobytes <Sandy.Pittendrigh (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On Dec 10, 3:30 pm, Ben C <spams... (AT) spam (DOT) eggs> wrote:
Almost. Relatively-positioned elements (block or not) have just the same
containing blocks as static ones-- i.e. just the nearest block ancestor.

It's only absolutely positioned ones whose CB is the nearest absolute or
fixed ancestor.

Ok. That makes more sense. I'll have to learn to keep
my participation to questions only. I seem to know enough to get
it almost right. Which is perhaps worse than wrong.

Don't worry about it. If you say something wrong then it might get
corrected and then it effectively might as well have been a question.
Better still perhaps one about something you didn't know you didn't
know.

The only difference is in the number of kickings you might receive, but
they are harmless fun you should ignore anyway.

Ben C wrote:

On 2007-12-11, salmobytes <Sandy.Pittendrigh (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
On Dec 10, 3:30 pm, Ben C <spams... (AT) spam (DOT) eggs> wrote:
Almost. Relatively-positioned elements (block or not) have just the same
containing blocks as static ones-- i.e. just the nearest block ancestor.

It's only absolutely positioned ones whose CB is the nearest absolute or
fixed ancestor.
Ok. That makes more sense. I'll have to learn to keep
my participation to questions only. I seem to know enough to get
it almost right. Which is perhaps worse than wrong.

Don't worry about it. If you say something wrong then it might get
corrected and then it effectively might as well have been a question.
Better still perhaps one about something you didn't know you didn't
know.

The only difference is in the number of kickings you might receive, but
they are harmless fun you should ignore anyway.

Hey but you got to admit that for most of us the right-good-kicking is
an effective educational tool. You remember the lesson!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com