2 Replies Latest reply on Aug 22, 2007 1:53 PM by Newsgroup_User

    Can Layers be given RELATIVE, rather than ABSOLUTE position

    bwilsonduncan
      I'm having no luck finding an answer to this in HELP. I place the layer's anchor in a table, then position the layer. If I subsequently add (or remove) any lines above the anchor, everything on the page moves down (or up), but the layer stays where it was, relative to the page, not the anchor.

      If there are several layers on the page this means a wholeot of repositioning every time I do an edit up-page.

      Any advice?
        • 1. Re: Can Layers be given RELATIVE, rather than ABSOLUTE position
          Level 7
          >>I place the layer's anchor in a table,

          There really is no such as a "layer anchor". 1st, a Layer is, by definition,
          an Absolutely Positioned (AP) element, most commonly a div. Layers in Tables
          are generally considered a very bad idea because of the nature of a table
          (expands/contracts based on content).

          >>but the layer stays where it was, relative to the page, not the anchor.

          That's how Layers work. They are positioned based on the position of their
          closest Relatively Positioned ancestor container. Again, there is no
          "anchor". I think you may be trying to extend the concept of an anchor in
          Word to HTML. They are as different as peaches and porcupines.


          Walt


          "bwilsonduncan" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
          news:fai5oe$q8t$1@forums.macromedia.com...
          > I'm having no luck finding an answer to this in HELP. I place the layer's
          > anchor in a table, then position the layer. If I subsequently add (or
          > remove)
          > any lines above the anchor, everything on the page moves down (or up), but
          > the
          > layer stays where it was, relative to the page, not the anchor.
          >
          > If there are several layers on the page this means a wholeot of
          > repositioning
          > every time I do an edit up-page.
          >
          > Any advice?
          >


          • 2. Re: Can Layers be given RELATIVE, rather than ABSOLUTE position
            Level 7
            This may help you understand positioning a bit -

            There are 4 different types of positioning:
            Absolute
            Relative
            Fixed
            Static

            Here is a brief explanation of each kind of positioning (with regard to
            placement of elements on the page only)....

            Position:absolute (or A/P elements)
            -----------------------
            This does several things -
            1. It 'removes' the element from the flow of the code on the page so that
            it can no longer influence the size or position of any other page element
            (except for those contained within it, of course).

            2. The absolutely positioned element takes its position from the position of
            its closest PARENT *positioned* element - in the absence of any explicitly
            positioned parent, this will default to the <body> tag, which is always
            positioned
            at 0,0 in the browser viewport.

            This means that it doesn't matter where in the HTML code the layer's code
            appears (between <body> and </body>), its location on the screen will not
            change (this assumes that you have not positioned the A/P element within
            a table or another A/P element, of course). Furthermore, the space in
            which
            this element would have appeared were it not positioned is not preserved
            on the screen. In other words, absolutely positioned elements don't take
            up any space on the page. In fact, they FLOAT over the page.

            Position:relative (or R/P elements)
            ----------------------
            In contrast to absolute positioning, a relatively positioned page element is
            *not* removed from the flow of the code on the page, so it will use the
            spot
            where it would have appeared based on its position in the code as its
            zero point reference. If you then supply top, right, bottom, or left
            positions
            to the style for this element, those values will be used as offsets from
            its
            zero point.

            This means that it DOES matter where in the code the relatively positioned
            element appears (, as it will be positioned in that location (factoring in
            the offsets) on the screen (this is true for any placement in the code).
            Furthermore, the space where this element would have appeared is
            preserved in the display, and can therefore affect the placement of
            succeeding elements. This means that the taller a relatively
            positioned element is, the more space it forces on the page.

            Position:static
            -------------------
            As with relative position, static positions also "go with the flow". An
            element with a static position cannot have values for offsets (top, right,
            left, bottom) or if it has them, they will be ignored. Unless explicitly
            positioned, all div elements default to static positioning.

            Position:fixed
            ------------------
            A page element with this style will not scroll as the page content scrolls.
            Support for this in elements other than page backgrounds is quirky

            There are several other things you need to know:

            1. ANY page element can be positioned - paragraphs, tables, images, lists,
            etc.
            2. The <div> tag is a BLOCK level tag. This means that if it is not
            positioned or explicitly styled otherwise, a) it will always begin on a new
            line on the screen, and b) it will always force content to a new line below
            it, and c) it will always take up the entire width of its container (i.e.,
            width:100%).
            3. The placement of A/P elements *can* affect the BEHAVIOR of other
            elements
            on the page. For example, a 'layer' placed over a hyperlink will mask that
            hyperlink.

            You can see a good example of the essential difference between absolute and
            relative positioning here -

            http://www.great-web-sights.com/g_layersdemo.asp

            You can see a good demonstration of why using layers for a page layout tool
            is dangerous here -

            http://www.great-web-sights.com/g_layer-overlap.asp

            Based on this, a static div (no longer a 'layer') would be what you want.

            --
            Murray --- ICQ 71997575
            Adobe Community Expert
            (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
            ==================
            http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
            http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
            http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
            http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
            ==================


            "bwilsonduncan" <webforumsuser@macromedia.com> wrote in message
            news:fai5oe$q8t$1@forums.macromedia.com...
            > I'm having no luck finding an answer to this in HELP. I place the layer's
            > anchor in a table, then position the layer. If I subsequently add (or
            > remove)
            > any lines above the anchor, everything on the page moves down (or up), but
            > the
            > layer stays where it was, relative to the page, not the anchor.
            >
            > If there are several layers on the page this means a wholeot of
            > repositioning
            > every time I do an edit up-page.
            >
            > Any advice?
            >