Jim Chapin wrote:
The original reason for the "position relative"
was to fix an IE problem. "The {position: relative} overcomes a bug in
IE/Win which prevents all but the last column of links from behaving like
links and being "clickable." (reference:
http://www.communitymx.com/content/article.cfm?page=3&cid=27F87 )
I was having this problem, which was rectified by the fix. Now, the problem
doesn't seem to be there??!!!
Yes.
The problem with magic bullets like position: relative or haslayout =
true is that they, depending on the complexity of the page, act in
different, often unpredictable ways, because both bug fix paths rely on
their own rendering engine bugs in IE.
They are not a cure, they are just parts of the problem. Occasionally,
we induce more bugs than we can fix.
I played with the CMX article by Holly and John, and of course, here,
position: relative is needed. But if you'd add another div wrapper with
a dimension (or add zoom:1 to the ul), position:relative is not needed
anymore for the "clickability" [1] of the links (but now they start to
jump on hover...)
Your situation is slightly different: you have additional wrappers, some
with a dimension, some without. So why does a small preceding div like
<div id="topbkgrnd"></div> on your page cause the relatively positioned
links in another, unrelated div to jump on hover?
I just don't know. Add position:relative and/or haslayout, or try to
remove them. All we can do is to play with the few fixes we have.
Ingo
[1] http://www.brunildo.org/test/IEABlock1.html
--
http://www.satzansatz.de/css.html
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
