updated version of menu.....convert to z-index?

[Richard]

http://www.geocities.com/r_bullis/gallery2.html

Still would like to know if this same setup could be done using z-index.

[mscir]

Richard wrote:

http://www.geocities.com/r_bullis/gallery2.html

Still would like to know if this same setup could be done using z-index.

The "Gallery Home" display doesn't look so good on my Netscape 7.2, it
works on my IE6.

I believe z-index determines the order in which elements are displayed,
not whether they are visible or not.

Mike

[Richard]

mscir wrote:

Richard wrote:

http://www.geocities.com/r_bullis/gallery2.html

Still would like to know if this same setup could be done using z-index.

The "Gallery Home" display doesn't look so good on my Netscape 7.2, it
works on my IE6. I believe z-index determines the order in which elements are displayed,
not whether they are visible or not. Mike

Holy shit!
Who the sam hell wrote this piece of garbage they call netsape 7.2??
It totally refuses to accept CSS!

Not only is it shitty, but they want to insist that you use AOL instant
messenger.
Ahhhh. Ok. It's just me.
Oh well.

Any reasons why it screws up so bad in NS?

[Steve Pugh]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:20:49 -0600, "Richard" <An*******@127.001>
wrote:

mscir wrote:

Richard wrote:

http://www.geocities.com/r_bullis/gallery2.html

Still would like to know if this same setup could be done using z-index.

The "Gallery Home" display doesn't look so good on my Netscape 7.2, it
works on my IE6.

I believe z-index determines the order in which elements are displayed,
not whether they are visible or not.

Mike

Holy shit!
Who the sam hell wrote this piece of garbage they call netsape 7.2??

The same people who wrote Mozilla and Firefox which also display the
gallery as a mess.
It totally refuses to accept CSS!
No. Your CSS is a piece of a garbage. As is your HTML.

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v...1&profile=css2

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht.../gallery2.html
Any reasons why it screws up so bad in NS?

As the image is floated is floated it does not contribute to the
height of the thumbox div. IE and Opera 7.5 get this wrong. As all
your images are 75px tall you can set the height opf thumbox to 75px
for a quick fix. But that will break if you ever put a lot of text
into the boxes as well. Adding clear: left to thumbox is also a good
idea.

You're floating elements inside a relatively positioned parent.
Floating and positioning are tricky to use in combination and trigger
a number of browser bugs. I would recommend finding a different way to
do what you want.

Steve

[Richard]

Steve Pugh wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:20:49 -0600, "Richard" <An*******@127.001>
wrote:

mscir wrote:

Richard wrote:

http://www.geocities.com/r_bullis/gallery2.html

Still would like to know if this same setup could be done using
z-index.

The "Gallery Home" display doesn't look so good on my Netscape 7.2, it
works on my IE6.

I believe z-index determines the order in which elements are
displayed, not whether they are visible or not.

Mike

Holy shit!
Who the sam hell wrote this piece of garbage they call netsape 7.2?? The same people who wrote Mozilla and Firefox which also display the
gallery as a mess. It totally refuses to accept CSS! No. Your CSS is a piece of a garbage. As is your HTML. http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/v....geocities.com
/r_bullis/gallery2.html&warning=1&profile=css2 http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...r_bullis/galle
ry2.html Any reasons why it screws up so bad in NS?

As the image is floated is floated it does not contribute to the
height of the thumbox div. IE and Opera 7.5 get this wrong. As all
your images are 75px tall you can set the height opf thumbox to 75px
for a quick fix. But that will break if you ever put a lot of text
into the boxes as well. Adding clear: left to thumbox is also a good
idea. You're floating elements inside a relatively positioned parent.
Floating and positioning are tricky to use in combination and trigger
a number of browser bugs. I would recommend finding a different way to
do what you want. Steve

Ok. A few bugs to work out.
Where did the "lightslategray" come from?
I used background-color:#C4FD89 syntax.

Other than the font errors, it actually validated quite well then.
So I'll clean it up a little and try again.

[Richard]

At least valdator3 was a bit more honest.
It didn't like the comment tags in the <li> section.
It doesn't like my use of P tags as well.
Required "alt" attribute missing.
And totally forget the crap generated from yahoo's server, that leaves one
basic error.
And that I will argue with because it was an inline <style> argument.