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.
This is a date