Last modified: 2014-06-26 22:10:54 UTC
Krinkle says z-index isn't as reliable and that position: absolute should be enough if we're the last thing in the <body> element.
I don't think so - anything with a z-index would still be above the lightbox. Also, AFAIK z-index is reliable enough as long as you are using it on direct children of the <body> - the IE6 bug is related to z-indexed elements having non-static parents. The z-index on .mlb-fullscreen-div is pointless, however - its parent also has a z-index so that one will determine how it is placed.
I guess the idea here is that we should *all* be using the append-to-DOM method as opposed to the z-index method, because the z-index method is DUMB.
What else is using z-index right now, that would prevent us from moving to append? Isn't it risky to bet on the fact that all other extensions will play nice and not use z-index?
The backdrop, wrapper, and maybe the file usage dialog(s) are all using various values for z-index. Apparently the buttons are, too. It shouldn'
...t be too hard to fix this, though, it's just a matter of making sure everything works well. Honestly we could probably display:none the rest of the DOM while the lightbox is open.
...oh, we do already. We don't need z-index for that, then.
We are appending to the end of the body (maybe that was different when this bug was opened), but I see no good reason not to have a z-index as well. Any administrator on any wiki can put a z-index rule into MediaWiki:Common.css and cause us problems. Is there ever a valid reason to position something above the lightbox? (Notifications, maybe?)
...although display:none works as well.
Yep, display: none is being applied already (could be taken a little bit further, though, by hiding all children except the mmv elements, currently it uses a whitelist). I think we can safely get rid of z-index. Any objections?
