Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape

  1. #1
    Barry Garvin Guest

    Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape

    HI,
    I'm trying to get my feet wet with html/dhtml and have run into a problem.

    I have a web page that uses style="position:absolute; z-index:1; Top:50px;
    Left:100px;....." to position three graphics on the screen. The graphics use
    z-index:1 to z-index:5 to 'overlay' them.

    I also use <div
    style="position:absolute;z-index:6;top:10px;left:150px;....."> to position
    text text above and to the right of the graphics where I put the 'content'
    verbiage. The graphics form sort of a border to the left and bottom of this
    'content' text.

    Anyway, this works great in IE but falls apart in Netscape 4.74. Can someone
    point me in the right direction for positioning graphics, text and
    <div></div> tags in the browser so they don't move that will work with IE
    and Netscape?

    Thanks
    Barry



  2. #2
    Patrick Steele Guest

    Re: Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape

    In article <39ff12a0$1@news.devx.com>, barry@seacom.com says...
    > I have a web page that uses style="position:absolute; z-index:1; Top:50px;
    > Left:100px;....." to position three graphics on the screen. The graphics use
    > z-index:1 to z-index:5 to 'overlay' them.
    >
    > I also use <div
    > style="position:absolute;z-index:6;top:10px;left:150px;....."> to position
    > text text above and to the right of the graphics where I put the 'content'
    > verbiage. The graphics form sort of a border to the left and bottom of this
    > 'content' text.
    >
    > Anyway, this works great in IE but falls apart in Netscape 4.74. Can someone
    > point me in the right direction for positioning graphics, text and
    > <div></div> tags in the browser so they don't move that will work with IE
    > and Netscape?


    Netscape 4.x does not fully support DHTML. In fact, it barely supports
    any DHTML at all, and does NOT support absolute positioning. You're out
    of luck with Netscape 4.x.

    If you *have* to have Netscape support, wait for version 6.x. It's
    supposed to have much better support of DHTML.

    --
    Patrick Steele
    (patrick@neovisionsystems.com)
    http://www.neovisionsystems.com
    Microsoft MCP

  3. #3
    Barry Garvin Guest

    Re: Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape

    Thanks Patrick. I knew that was going to be the answer but kept seeing
    references to Netscape supporting DHTML. Suckered again <g>.


    "Patrick Steele" <patrick@neovisionsystems.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1468f2ef4049f107989694@news.devx.com...
    > In article <39ff12a0$1@news.devx.com>, barry@seacom.com says...
    > > I have a web page that uses style="position:absolute; z-index:1;

    Top:50px;
    > > Left:100px;....." to position three graphics on the screen. The graphics

    use
    > > z-index:1 to z-index:5 to 'overlay' them.
    > >
    > > I also use <div
    > > style="position:absolute;z-index:6;top:10px;left:150px;....."> to

    position
    > > text text above and to the right of the graphics where I put the

    'content'
    > > verbiage. The graphics form sort of a border to the left and bottom of

    this
    > > 'content' text.
    > >
    > > Anyway, this works great in IE but falls apart in Netscape 4.74. Can

    someone
    > > point me in the right direction for positioning graphics, text and
    > > <div></div> tags in the browser so they don't move that will work with

    IE
    > > and Netscape?

    >
    > Netscape 4.x does not fully support DHTML. In fact, it barely supports
    > any DHTML at all, and does NOT support absolute positioning. You're out
    > of luck with Netscape 4.x.
    >
    > If you *have* to have Netscape support, wait for version 6.x. It's
    > supposed to have much better support of DHTML.
    >
    > --
    > Patrick Steele
    > (patrick@neovisionsystems.com)
    > http://www.neovisionsystems.com
    > Microsoft MCP




  4. #4
    Avron Polakow Guest

    Re: Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape

    Nonsense! DHTML started with Netscape. They invented the syntax.

    IE created their own syntax (sin tax?) but don't offer much of the functionality
    of NS.
    IE has some strong weaknesses (oxymorons fit IE very well).
    Simpler code but, oh so slow, execution!
    Try creating an array of images and writing them to individual image SRCs.
    You'll discover a new meaning to the word "slow".

    Just to see how far you can go with Netscape DHTML try the following two examples:

    ( IE doesn't have these dynamic DHTML features).

    - dragging and dropping images using the attached "dropthumbsintoNN.htm"
    - watch the browser change in appearance using "BrowserChangesNSgood.htm"


    Patrick Steele wrote:

    > In article <39ff12a0$1@news.devx.com>, barry@seacom.com says...
    > > I have a web page that uses style="position:absolute; z-index:1; Top:50px;
    > > Left:100px;....." to position three graphics on the screen. The graphics use
    > > z-index:1 to z-index:5 to 'overlay' them.
    > >
    > > I also use <div
    > > style="position:absolute;z-index:6;top:10px;left:150px;....."> to position
    > > text text above and to the right of the graphics where I put the 'content'
    > > verbiage. The graphics form sort of a border to the left and bottom of this
    > > 'content' text.
    > >
    > > Anyway, this works great in IE but falls apart in Netscape 4.74. Can someone
    > > point me in the right direction for positioning graphics, text and
    > > <div></div> tags in the browser so they don't move that will work with IE
    > > and Netscape?

    >
    > Netscape 4.x does not fully support DHTML. In fact, it barely supports
    > any DHTML at all, and does NOT support absolute positioning. You're out
    > of luck with Netscape 4.x.
    >
    > If you *have* to have Netscape support, wait for version 6.x. It's
    > supposed to have much better support of DHTML.
    >
    > --
    > Patrick Steele
    > (patrick@neovisionsystems.com)
    > http://www.neovisionsystems.com
    > Microsoft MCP


    Attached Files Attached Files

  5. #5
    Patrick Steele Guest

    Re: Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape

    In article <3A011296.8143C8B6@inter.net.il>, avronp@inter.net.il says...
    > Nonsense! DHTML started with Netscape. They invented the syntax.
    >
    > IE created their own syntax (sin tax?) but don't offer much of the functionality
    > of NS.


    Hardly...

    > IE has some strong weaknesses (oxymorons fit IE very well).
    > Simpler code but, oh so slow, execution!
    > Try creating an array of images and writing them to individual image SRCs.
    > You'll discover a new meaning to the word "slow".
    >
    > Just to see how far you can go with Netscape DHTML try the following two examples:
    >
    > ( IE doesn't have these dynamic DHTML features).
    >
    > - dragging and dropping images using the attached "dropthumbsintoNN.htm"
    > - watch the browser change in appearance using "BrowserChangesNSgood.htm"


    DHTML may have started with Netscape, but they dropped the ball. IE has
    a way better DOM with much more capability to create robust, interactive
    web pages.

    My area of work involves creating web applications -- my customers want
    browser-based applications that look similar to their desktop versions.
    There's no way I can do that with Netscape:

    - it doesn't support absolute positioning
    - it can't dynamically create a table and place it in the middle of the
    page
    - once that table is there, I can't add/delete rows at will

    The list goes on and on. Netscape's current rendering engine is the
    same one they've been using since 1.0. It's a static engine that
    doesn't support changes in the middle of the page. The page will NOT
    reflow with the changes. That's why there is no Netscape 5.x. They
    planned on using the same, outdated rendering engine in Netscape 5 and
    the Netscape community threw a fit. They new the engine couldn't
    compete with IE's DHTML support. So, Netscape threw away the old engine
    and started new (Gecko).

    So, there's a chance Netscape can make a decent browser that (fully)
    supports DHTML. But it's an uphill battle. Everyone knows Netscape's
    use is dwindling down towards the single digit percentage points. And
    now with AOL owning it and much of the original engineers gone, it's
    almost certainly a dead horse.

    --
    Patrick Steele
    (patrick@neovisionsystems.com)
    http://www.neovisionsystems.com
    Microsoft MCP

  6. #6
    Avron Polakow Guest

    Re: Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape

    I write extensive imaging applications on the Internet and all of the features you say
    are not available are definitely available in NS.

    Neither NS's or IEs DOM has been vindicated by W3C that's why both are now releasing
    browsers with the
    universally defined DOM for browsers. NS6 and IE5.5 are both trying to get there with
    different degrees of success.

    Patrick Steele wrote:

    > In article <3A011296.8143C8B6@inter.net.il>, avronp@inter.net.il says...
    > > Nonsense! DHTML started with Netscape. They invented the syntax.
    > >
    > > IE created their own syntax (sin tax?) but don't offer much of the functionality
    > > of NS.

    >
    > Hardly...
    >
    > > IE has some strong weaknesses (oxymorons fit IE very well).
    > > Simpler code but, oh so slow, execution!
    > > Try creating an array of images and writing them to individual image SRCs.
    > > You'll discover a new meaning to the word "slow".
    > >
    > > Just to see how far you can go with Netscape DHTML try the following two examples:
    > >
    > > ( IE doesn't have these dynamic DHTML features).
    > >
    > > - dragging and dropping images using the attached "dropthumbsintoNN.htm"
    > > - watch the browser change in appearance using "BrowserChangesNSgood.htm"

    >
    > DHTML may have started with Netscape, but they dropped the ball. IE has
    > a way better DOM with much more capability to create robust, interactive
    > web pages.
    >
    > My area of work involves creating web applications -- my customers want
    > browser-based applications that look similar to their desktop versions.
    > There's no way I can do that with Netscape:
    >
    > - it doesn't support absolute positioning


    >> FALSE - They were the first to implement it. I allow users to drag their images

    around the page using both browsers.
    Can only be done with absolute positioning. NS requires DIVs to have an ID defined
    in the css.
    From there everything goes smoothely.

    >
    > - it can't dynamically create a table and place it in the middle of the
    > page


    >> Ditto! AS above


    >
    > - once that table is there, I can't add/delete rows at will


    >> Can do - Just keep it in a DIV rewrite it. Sure it's different syntax from IE. But MS

    didn't yet invent English
    (although they've probably tried to take a patent out on it).

    >
    > The list goes on and on.


    >> THE LIST ONLY GOES ON ONLY if you didn't know how to do it in the first place!!

    I'm no great fan of either browser and am not trying to advocate Netscape.
    I just think fairness is required

    > Netscape's current rendering engine is the
    > same one they've been using since 1.0. It's a static engine that
    > doesn't support changes in the middle of the page. The page will NOT
    > reflow with the changes. That's why there is no Netscape 5.x. They
    > planned on using the same, outdated rendering engine in Netscape 5 and
    > the Netscape community threw a fit. They new the engine couldn't
    > compete with IE's DHTML support. So, Netscape threw away the old engine
    > and started new (Gecko).


    >> AND MS is also discarding it's DOM in favor of w3c standards.


    >
    > So, there's a chance Netscape can make a decent browser that (fully)
    > supports DHTML. But it's an uphill battle. Everyone knows Netscape's
    > use is dwindling down towards the single digit percentage points.


    >> COULD be true. I suggest looking at some of the really good browsers competing with

    both IE and NS.
    I wonder if either of them have such a bright future with such competition. The
    other browsers are targeted
    to large niche markets which they could well capture.
    - NeoPlanet for Multimedia
    - Enigma: Lightning fast for database access (and miniscule in size)
    - Opera: A delight
    and many others

    And they all have their own DOMS



    > And
    > now with AOL owning it and much of the original engineers gone, it's
    > almost certainly a dead horse.
    >
    > --
    > Patrick Steele
    > (patrick@neovisionsystems.com)
    > http://www.neovisionsystems.com
    > Microsoft MCP



  7. #7
    Patrick Steele Guest

    Re: Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape

    In article <3A0271AA.AC1ED23D@inter.net.il>, avronp@inter.net.il says...
    > I write extensive imaging applications on the Internet and all of the features you say
    > are not available are definitely available in NS.


    Only partially -- and it's a hack. DIV's littered all over the place.
    Re-writing an entire table to update one row. Sorry -- you may "get
    those features", but they are not robust enough for serious web
    applications.

    > Neither NS's or IEs DOM has been vindicated by W3C that's why both are now releasing
    > browsers with the
    > universally defined DOM for browsers. NS6 and IE5.5 are both trying to get there with
    > different degrees of success.


    I agree neither one has been officially adopted by the W3C. And I also
    agree IE has done a lot of proprietary stuff. However, Netscape hasn't
    even tried to keep up. Even if they would have come up with their own
    standard (different than IE's), we could at least have similar control
    in both browsers. Instead, they let 4.x sit there and grow old...

    > > - it doesn't support absolute positioning

    >
    > >> FALSE - They were the first to implement it. I allow users to drag their images

    > around the page using both browsers.
    > Can only be done with absolute positioning. NS requires DIVs to have an ID defined
    > in the css.
    > From there everything goes smoothely.


    Ok, I need to litter my form with DIV's to get the positioning. And I
    need to defined a custom class to get the position? Why can't I just:

    <input type=button style="position: absolute; magin-top: 300px; margin-
    left: 200px;">

    Much cleaner and -- since a lot of people still access the Internet via
    a modem -- much less bandwidth since I don't need to wrap a bunch of
    <DIV> tags around everything.


    > > - once that table is there, I can't add/delete rows at will

    >
    > >> Can do - Just keep it in a DIV rewrite it. Sure it's different syntax from IE. But MS

    > didn't yet invent English
    > (although they've probably tried to take a patent out on it).


    It's clear you have a true hatred for IE and aren't looking at the
    issues objectively. Your solution, again, requires a DIV and re-writing
    of the entire table! I have a 30 row grid with 6 columns. Adding one
    row requires an entire re-write of the table?! Hack!


    > > The list goes on and on.

    >
    > >> THE LIST ONLY GOES ON ONLY if you didn't know how to do it in the first place!!

    > I'm no great fan of either browser and am not trying to advocate Netscape.
    > I just think fairness is required


    Agreed. Netscape may be able to partially support some of the things I
    brought up, but it's kludgy, requires a lot of re-building of the form,
    takes up a lot more bandwidth and has limited functionality when the
    page needs to reflow.

    >
    > > Netscape's current rendering engine is the
    > > same one they've been using since 1.0. It's a static engine that
    > > doesn't support changes in the middle of the page. The page will NOT
    > > reflow with the changes. That's why there is no Netscape 5.x. They
    > > planned on using the same, outdated rendering engine in Netscape 5 and
    > > the Netscape community threw a fit. They new the engine couldn't
    > > compete with IE's DHTML support. So, Netscape threw away the old engine
    > > and started new (Gecko).

    >
    > >> AND MS is also discarding it's DOM in favor of w3c standards.


    I guess your biggest object about IE is now going away...

    >
    > >
    > > So, there's a chance Netscape can make a decent browser that (fully)
    > > supports DHTML. But it's an uphill battle. Everyone knows Netscape's
    > > use is dwindling down towards the single digit percentage points.

    >
    > >> COULD be true.


    Correction -- IS true. Check GIGA's or IDC's research. I'm not making
    this stuff up.

    --
    Patrick Steele
    (patrick@neovisionsystems.com)
    http://www.neovisionsystems.com
    Microsoft MCP

  8. #8
    Lior Amar Guest

    Re: Absolute Position; z-Index and Netscape

    Ooh the Netscape vs IE battles. This reminds me of the good old days. I'm
    not one to agree with either, but I do agree that IE makes the developers
    life a lot easier. Netscape made a promise to its developer community
    saying DHTML is the way of the future and then they just left them their to
    die.

    Anybody who says that you can do anything with Netscape that you can do with
    IE is a masochist (sp??). There is no way you can do the same stuff but
    that's ok, there is no way you can do the same stuff in Windows that you can
    in Unix (like 99.9% up time).

    I admit I am a fan of IE for the simple reason that I tried to make our site
    Netscape 4.0 friendly. After a month of trying I simply gave up because I
    had so many hacks in it to make it do what it needed to do that it was
    simply not worth it. But...big but, I have been playing with Netscape 6.0
    and the future is not over for Netscape (other then the fact that the look
    is uglier then sin..is it me or does it look like a MAC??) . If they can
    speed it up a bit, cause it's horribly slow, they can maybe put back some
    competitiveness in this market. I am one developer who is fed up of being
    an innocent bystander in the browser war. I will support the W3C standards
    and I will bend over and do what needs be to make all my development W3C
    compatible (when supporting browsers are common place) but never again will
    I ever code something for a browser. I thought HTML was the way to get apps
    to work on different platforms...but what good is it if all I can do is make
    a static table? And I'll be damned if I write pages with 30 divs just to
    place images in the correct places!

    This said, you have to understand that most sites can be crossbrowser
    compatible unless you need to write a **Web Application** at which point you
    need to utilize every aspect of DHTML and IE offers a lot more then
    Netscape. All the **Web Sites** we develop for our clients must be Cross
    Browser and must support Netscape 4.

    All that to say, you're both right but what's the point of arguing. IE vs
    Netscape vs Opera vs nothing, at the end of the day you develop for one and
    then try and make it work with the others. Chances are it won't and then
    you just make a new similar page that will work with the others....of course
    after losing 5 years of your life from stress!

    Just my 2 cents but from the looks of it you guys got the 2 Dollar version
    (sorry for the looooong post)...


    --
    Lee Amar
    Chief Technology Officer
    www.ostnet.com
    OSTnet OpenSource Technologies Inc
    lior@ostnet.com
    OSTnet develops software and subcontracts much of the work to registered
    developers over the Internet. Members of www.ostnet.com are free to view all
    company projects open for tender (in the Projects section of the Developer
    Home) and can apply to work on these projects. We prequalify all of our
    members to determine their level and areas of expertise. Please feel free to
    sign up at your leisure and write the exams in order to qualify yourself for
    OSTnet projects.




    "Patrick Steele" <patrick@neovisionsystems.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.146b3d59d5b2641f989699@news.devx.com...
    > In article <3A011296.8143C8B6@inter.net.il>, avronp@inter.net.il says...
    > > Nonsense! DHTML started with Netscape. They invented the syntax.
    > >
    > > IE created their own syntax (sin tax?) but don't offer much of the

    functionality
    > > of NS.

    >
    > Hardly...
    >
    > > IE has some strong weaknesses (oxymorons fit IE very well).
    > > Simpler code but, oh so slow, execution!
    > > Try creating an array of images and writing them to individual image

    SRCs.
    > > You'll discover a new meaning to the word "slow".
    > >
    > > Just to see how far you can go with Netscape DHTML try the following two

    examples:
    > >
    > > ( IE doesn't have these dynamic DHTML features).
    > >
    > > - dragging and dropping images using the attached "dropthumbsintoNN.htm"
    > > - watch the browser change in appearance using

    "BrowserChangesNSgood.htm"
    >
    > DHTML may have started with Netscape, but they dropped the ball. IE has
    > a way better DOM with much more capability to create robust, interactive
    > web pages.
    >
    > My area of work involves creating web applications -- my customers want
    > browser-based applications that look similar to their desktop versions.
    > There's no way I can do that with Netscape:
    >
    > - it doesn't support absolute positioning
    > - it can't dynamically create a table and place it in the middle of the
    > page
    > - once that table is there, I can't add/delete rows at will
    >
    > The list goes on and on. Netscape's current rendering engine is the
    > same one they've been using since 1.0. It's a static engine that
    > doesn't support changes in the middle of the page. The page will NOT
    > reflow with the changes. That's why there is no Netscape 5.x. They
    > planned on using the same, outdated rendering engine in Netscape 5 and
    > the Netscape community threw a fit. They new the engine couldn't
    > compete with IE's DHTML support. So, Netscape threw away the old engine
    > and started new (Gecko).
    >
    > So, there's a chance Netscape can make a decent browser that (fully)
    > supports DHTML. But it's an uphill battle. Everyone knows Netscape's
    > use is dwindling down towards the single digit percentage points. And
    > now with AOL owning it and much of the original engineers gone, it's
    > almost certainly a dead horse.
    >
    > --
    > Patrick Steele
    > (patrick@neovisionsystems.com)
    > http://www.neovisionsystems.com
    > Microsoft MCP




Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center