From: dorayme on
In article <cf283691jr31bncroifgdl4qk8nkleolol(a)4ax.com>,
me <noemail(a)nothere.com> wrote:

> I would like to place a new layer (user closeable) on the page
> directly over an existing image in a table.

Something that appears instead of the image there? Something that
the user can somehow make go away and the image that would
otherwise appear, appear? That's easy:

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/topLayer.html>

--
dorayme
From: dorayme on
In article <p90a36dss0fb4unf8u89qsun77gg5op34f(a)4ax.com>,
me <noemail(a)nothere.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:03:38 +1000, dorayme <dorayme(a)optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <cf283691jr31bncroifgdl4qk8nkleolol(a)4ax.com>,
> > me <noemail(a)nothere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I would like to place a new layer (user closeable) on the page
> >> directly over an existing image in a table.
> >
> >Something that appears instead of the image there? Something that
> >the user can somehow make go away and the image that would
> >otherwise appear, appear? That's easy:
> >
> ><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/topLayer.html>
>
> Actually, I am looking to do something a little different.
>
> In the sample below, I want the table in the top layer's table cell
> (red) to end up with its right edge lined up exactly with the right
> edge of the lower layer table's right cell (blue). So, the red cell in
> the upper layer table would completely and exactly cover the blue cell
> in the lower layer table.

OK, I admit I was dealing in mere appearance plus the function of
being able to change the appearance. If appearance is not all
that counts, what does count? In other words what really are you
doing? How about a URL that shows your context and why you are
doing this and what you are trying to achieve?

--
dorayme
From: dorayme on
In article <tiob361rp9ib8b3cae5vrdhktd7up5fm6n(a)4ax.com>,
me <noemail(a)nothere.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Jul 2010 18:47:49 +1000, dorayme <dorayme(a)optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >Before doing complicated things that ensure exact placing, *why*
> >is this so important, why can't you float a box to the right of
> >the table that plays a video. What has the video semantically or
> >any other significant way got to do with the table? Why not play
> >the video absolutely positioned on top of everything but in the
> >far right corner of a user's browser? If they click on it or
> >something on it, the page goes to a page without the video
> >markup.
>
> It's mostly an "artistic" issue. The customer does not want the video
> layer to float off the page to the right when the browser window is
> very wide, or have it float too far to the left and cover content when
> the window is more normally sized.
>
> >
> >If you want to place some box absolutely in relation to another
> >box, give that reference-box 'position: relative', otherwise the
> >abs positioning will be relative to the viewport. But it does not
> >work with tables. It works smoothly in most browsers if you use
> >other box elements. How about a DIV? Why are you using tables? Is
> >it just for layout? If so, here is a good reason not to, you can
> >quite exactly and reliably place an abs positioned element in a
> >DIV by styling the container DIV 'position: relative'.
>
> The page is already coded with tables, and I'd prefer to not recode
> the site if there is some way around this issue. I know I have a mixed
> solution.
>
> >In the absence of a URL that richly shows what you are doing all
> >I can do is throw out various ideas and play about.
> >
> ><http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/one.html>
>
> That's very close... but is it possible to get the entire structure to
> center in the browser instead of being left justified, yet still have
> the crimson image stick where it is ?
>


Yes, there are a few ways, one is to width the main wrapper and
give it auto margin on left and right. For example, change the
line:

<div style="position: relative; float: left;">

to

<div style="position: relative; width: 400px; margin: auto;">

--
dorayme