Tue, 2003-09-30 13:21
Hi,
I have put together a layout that uses position : fixed to emulate frames. It works like a charm in Netscape 7 (and Mozilla), but IE chokes on it.
The layout in question can be found here:
HTML: <removed>
CSS: <removed>
I've been pointed to http://devnull.tagsoup.com/fixed/ for a way to work around the issue in IE, but so far I haven't had much luck implementing it. In fact, all I've managed to do is break it in both Netscape and IE. 
See here:
HTML: <removed>
CSS: <removed>
I imagine I am probably misunderstanding how to implement the IE hack, however, and if anyone has any thoughts on how I might go about solving this problem (if it is at all possible), I'd love to hear them.
Edited to add:
The temporary pages above have been removed, and the final layout can be found here: http://www.westeros.org/BoD/
Tue, 2003-09-30 15:51
#1
IE & position : fixed -- workarounds?
#DragonLeft {
background : transparent url(Graphics/im_dragon-left.gif) no-repeat;
height : 105px;
left : 0px;
position : fixed;
top :0px;
width : 140px;
}
#DragonRight {
background : transparent url(Graphics/im_dragon-right.gif) no-repeat;
height : 105px;
position : fixed;
right : 0px;
top :0px;
width : 140px;
}
I would do a couple of things differently...
1) Declare the positioning as absolute somewhere for these
2) Always measure from the left as that is how browsers measure. so...Instead of Right: 0px for your #dragonright
#DragonRight {
background : transparent url(Graphics/im_dragon-right.gif) no-repeat;
height : 105px;
position : fixed;
left : 610px;
top :0px;
width : 140px;
}
The above assumes you are designing for an 800x600 screen...which can handle about 750 pixels wide in a browser...
Give that a shot and you shouldn't have a problem.
Also...read some articles on CSS...your css is really complex when it doesn't need to be.
Tue, 2003-09-30 16:08
#2
IE & position : fixed -- workarounds?
1) Yes, I imagine I could position the corner images and the headers absolutely rather than fixed, but IE will still choke on the bits that are fixed, so I don't think it really solves the issue.
2) Measuring from the left is, unfortunately, not really an option because I don't want to design for a specific resolution. If the user's resolution is larger then 800x600, I don't like to constrain them to a smaller text-area since I know myself that I find that annoying.
Thanks for the suggestions, though. 
Tue, 2007-02-13 00:33
#3
Fixed: some things never change...
Linda wrote:
...a layout that uses position : fixed to emulate frames ... works like a charm in Netscape 7 (and Mozilla), but IE chokes on it.
what is the csscreator.com recommended approach to "forcing" IE to follow the intended CSS style rule of the position:fixed declaration?
though it appears that this user has successfully circumvented the pesky browser quirks, as demonstrated
Linda wrote:
knowing there is more than one way to skin a cat, and likely a more standardized, most reliable, tried and true method, what singular resource would you cite as one which demonstrates both how to retain the appearance of the "intended" property declaration in IE, and also might be considered a quintessential, standards compliant, good-boy-scout's best reference for using position:fixed as part of a page layout?
the final layout can be found here: http://www.westeros.org/BoD/
in other words-- cause him can't read good or talk too good neether...
what do you reference as the primary technique for maintaining accessible, valid XHTML and CSS, while emphasizing the IE user's perception of the position:fixed property; that the declared element will appear to be "fixed" in IE
thanks!
EDIT:
oh-- i forgot to put this link here, just for fun...
http://www.workfriendly.net/browse/Office2003Blue/http/www.mozillazine.org/
Tue, 2007-02-13 16:55
#4
Pssst . . . three-and-a-half
Pssst . . . three-and-a-half year old thread 
Sat, 2007-04-07 21:36
#5
thepineapplehead wrote:Pssst
thepineapplehead wrote:
... and that has what to do w/ the price of bread?
Pssst . . . three-and-a-half year old thread
what makes the difference what age the thread if the contents therein remains relevant? The thread i chose, a result of searching the forum history, was relevant to an issue i was facing at the time. Beyond the technical issue, it even provided a "case-study". for others who may seek the same info, why add to the difficulty of pinpointing a solution by creating a redundant thread (not to mention, a thread of lesser value)?
this demonstrates that ultimately my effort to search the forum, instead of avoiding redundancy, has resulted in irrelevancy.
i've always considered this a place for learning. so, scientifically speaking, since effort was extended to contribute to the thread, yet there was no useful information in TPH's reply, what then is the intended product of the effort against the load?
just curious.
Sat, 2007-04-07 22:22
#6
jsabararese this tends to a
jsabararese this tends to a pattern of habit with you, silence for a long time then you post a fairly obtuse post designed ostensibly to draw people out in debate, as in the past iirc you drag up a fairly old thread to this end.
This activity is commonoly known as trolling albeit in a relatively sophisticated fashion.
Problem is that when someone draws issue with your post you enter into the same defensive posturing trying rather lamely to justify yourself and the post.
I support this with the fact that you seemed to post a topic that know seems to have disapeared? why? did it not elisit the responce you required?
Partisipate in the forum, help people our with their problems, post your own requests for help; but stop these sorts of posts please as they are boring, pointless and I can see no reason for them despite your protistations to the contrary, it ends from this point on please