[dorian]

I'm doing some primitive dropdown menus using layers... the problem is though, that where the layers are supposed to appear I have a bit of flash eye-candy... so the layers are supposed to go ON TOP of a flash movie... now, with the flash bit being exported as 'transparent-windowless' it work fine.....
....but only (surprise-surprise) in IE!
any advise how to make it work in netscape? (apart from "don't do it")
Netscape just doesn't support transparent flash movies, right?

[And]

I may be barking up the wrong tree (nothing changes) but have you tried playing with the [code:1:54a9b53194]-moz-opacity: **%[/code:1:54a9b53194] on the layers themselves?

[Brooklyn]

[quote:bf0e9b4102="And"]I may be barking up the wrong tree (nothing changes) but have you tried playing with the [code:1:bf0e9b4102]-moz-opacity: **%[/code:1:bf0e9b4102] on the layers themselves?[/quote:bf0e9b4102]

Use this with caution as the -moz-opacity is applied to all child elements as well as the parent, so anything within that <div> or layer will inherit the same value automatically unlike IE which only applies the filter:alpha(xx) tot he parent.

Hope that made sense.

FWIW I also discovered that you cant use -moz-opacity for things like clever rollovers by switching the value using script!

[dorian]

thanks for that - I learned something. But I can't see how setting opacity of a layer should help?!? it is the layer that is underneath - while it should be on top!
some of this moz-opacity stuff only works in netscape... never heard of it before though...
but I'm not very good with code either I use the wysiwyg Dreamweaver. ...I'm the kind of guy that only occasionally goes into the code... (it scares me

[Bill Posters]

[quote:ffefebe418="dorian"]....but only (surprise-surprise) in IE!
any advise how to make it work in netscape? (apart from "don't do it")
Netscape just doesn't support transparent flash movies, right?[/quote:ffefebe418]

[quote:ffefebe418="Macromedia.com"]
The following browsers currently support windowless mode:

Windows and Mac OS X

Internet Explorer 3 or higher (Windows)
Internet Explorer 5.1* and 5.2* (Macintosh)
Netscape 7.0*
Mozilla 1.0 or higher*
AOL*
CompuServe* * Macromedia Flash Player version 6,0,65,0 (Windows) or 6,0,67,0 (Macintosh) or higher required for this feature.
[/quote:ffefebe418]

One other popular workaround (read: last resort) is to use the javascript event that triggers the dhtml menu to also temporarily hide the swf object.
This isn't the most graceful of solutions but it became popular before wmode had any decent support.

There is nothing you can do to get the dhtml menu to display 'on top' of the swf as it comes down to how embedded plugin content is rendered on the page.
Plugin content (and iframes too) are floated above the other content and as such will always be on top of the stack regardless of z-indexing.

(at least that's my understanding of the situation as of the last time this question was asked on one of the web/des/dev fora I visit)

[dorian]

yeah but then... how come the bleedin thing works in IE!?!? it looks like in IE the z-order comes before silly rules about embedded objects... (what was the logic behind this anyway in the first place?) hmmmph:/

[Bill Posters]

I don't think it was 'rules' or a decision as such, but more a case of early limitations to possibilities of implementing one technology 'inside' another.

It was likely to have been technical neccesity that dictated that plug-in content would be windowed into a different channel to that of native content.
Possibly something to do with the fact(?) that the underlying technology in html rendering hasn't really changed since day one and the way that plug-in content is by nature 'added on' later to the browser's native capabilities.

Also, it's worth remembering that dhtml and floating layers (z-indexed) are a relatively recent addition to the tricks a browser can do. As such, I don't imagine they were ever part of the original blueprint and therefore there was no reason to believe that plug-in content would be problematic if kept at the top of the stack (so to speak).


That's my semi-educated guess, anyway

I can only guess that the fact that MSIEWin handles this 'correctly' have managed to get ahead of the pack for once.
(Now if they could only pull their collective thumb from out of their arse regarding fundamentals...)

[dorian]

[quote:b95c401f2c="Bill Posters"]there was no reason to believe that plug-in content would be problematic if kept at the top of the stack[/quote:b95c401f2c]
they were wrong!!
one mans ignorance = another mans sweat....

[quote:b95c401f2c="Bill Posters"]That's my semi-educated guess, anyway [/quote:b95c401f2c]I won't argue