I've got a problem with my css when the user makes the menu's wrap
above each other.

At www.vowleyfarm.co.uk if you close up the browser narrow enough
that the boxes stack above each other, the top level menu items of
boxes lower down the page "cut through" the drop down from a higher-
up-the-page menu.

Is this a z-order (?) issue?

Regards
Mark

In article <VA.00000010.2557fc4c@vowleyfarm.co.uk>, Usenet wrote:

I've got a problem with my css when the user makes the menu's wrap
above each other.

Too dull a question???

8-(

Mark

Usenet <Mark@dont.spamme.invalidwrote:

>
>Too dull a question???

Apparently.

>8-(

Sulking isn't likely to entice an answer, after all this is a discussion
group first and foremost. Without having looked at your problem I'm
guessing that you should consider that IE's line height may not stretch
to contain images, ergo look into explicitly specifying a line-height.

--
Spartanicus

In article <h9god2ddooairs0dnq92md5kah7gq77ttl@4ax.com>, Spartanicus
wrote:

Apparently.

Oh well

Sulking isn't likely to entice an answer,

'Twas only a mini-sulk, honest. However, I stand

Without having looked at your problem I'm
guessing that you should consider that IE's line height may not stretch
to contain images, ergo look into explicitly specifying a line-height.

With due respect (& appreciation for the reply), I don't *think* the
image, and hence the line height, is the problem. I'm quite prepared to
be wrong if that's the case though.

For those who haven't looked at it, this is what's going on.
Yes, I have boxes with images in and the menu text inside the box below
the image.

Works fine (I think), even in IE, now.

However, when the browser window is narrow enough to make the boxes stack
above each other, the *text* of a menu item in a low(er) box interrupts
the text of the dropdown from a menu item above it!

Surprised me, but then I don't know much. I expected the dropdown to take
precedence over stuff "underneath" it. Obviously I was wrong.

Any help gratefully received.

Regards
Mark

In article <VA.00000012.2f8fb515@vowleyfarm.co.uk>, Usenet wrote:

>
'Twas only a mini-sulk, honest. However, I stand

Ooops, "corrected" was meant to be at the end of that sentence.

Mark