Notice that this time, since div-1a was removed from the document, the other elements on the page were positioned differently: div-1b, div-1c, and div-after moved up since div-1a was no longer there.
Also notice that div-1a was positioned in the top right corner of the page. It's nice to be able to position things directly the page, but it's of limited value.
What I really want is to position div-1a relative to div-1. And that's where relative position comes back into play.
Footnotes
* There is a bug in the Windows IE browser: if you specify a relative width (like "width:50%") then the width will be based on the parent element instead of on the positioning element.
Notice that this time, since div-1a was removed from the document, the other elements on the page were positioned differently: div-1b, div-1c, and div-after moved up since div-1a was no longer there.
Also notice that div-1a was positioned in the top right corner of the page. It's nice to be able to position things directly the page, but it's of limited value.
What I really want is to position div-1a relative to div-1. And that's where relative position comes back into play.
Footnotes
* There is a bug in the Windows IE browser: if you specify a relative width (like "width:50%") then the width will be based on the parent element instead of on the positioning element.
Notice that this time, since div-1a was removed from the document, the other elements on the page were positioned differently: div-1b, div-1c, and div-after moved up since div-1a was no longer there.
Also notice that div-1a was positioned in the top right corner of the page. It's nice to be able to position things directly the page, but it's of limited value.
What I really want is to position div-1a relative to div-1. And that's where relative position comes back into play.
Footnotes
* There is a bug in the Windows IE browser: if you specify a relative width (like "width:50%") then the width will be based on the parent element instead of on the positioning element.