I am looking for a way to avoid having the table jiggle around as in the following:
I understand it is because of the hours changing it's number of digits. So is there a way I could set the width based on the font size and the widest XX.XX could ever be?
I could always change it to 'hours' instead of 'hrs', but I am a bit partial to 'hrs, and am just curious. Also if you were on a large enough screen it would go onto one line and the problem would persist.
Thanks
Edit:
Here's a minimum code example Fiddle
span is an inline element and has its width set to the size of its content. To be able to set the width you can set it to be an inline-block using display: inline-block;. Then, you can use either min-width or width to accomplish what you want to do here.
W3Schools has a great resource on the display property, and how different block elements work with different display properties.
Related
I have never heard of this intrinsic value before until I come across this page on MDN.
From what I know intrinsic means natural. So how does this work out in CSS. I thought that auto would have been natural. I've searched around a bit but can't find anything on it.
What does it do different than auto?
The example I saw was max-width: intrinsic;
It looks like the intrinsic value is part of the newer CSS3 sizing module:
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-sizing/
I have not used it yet but perhaps the reference will provide you with more information.
Based on a quick review, this module would make it easier to specify how content fills the width and height of a parent containing block.
At the moment, JavaScript functions are often used to compute widths and heights of container blocks based on % values for variable child elements content.
It allows you to set the width of an element to stretch wide enough to accommodate its children. So, if a div element contained a wide image and some text, the div would stretch wide enough to accommodate the image, and the text would begin breaking at that threshold.
Definitely experimental and not widely supported: http://caniuse.com/intrinsic-width
Intrinsic sizing determines sizes based on the contents of an element,
without regard for its context.
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-sizing/#intrinsic-sizing
I have found that in iOS8, flexbox children may not always try to contain all their children and instead max their height to the available viewport.
min-height: min-intrinsic fixes that problem.
I have a div element with to resize:vertical style on it. The contents of the div are generated, so it could be empty or filled. The div needs a max height, so that the height increases as new items are added, but it caps the size at 150px and makes the div scrollable.
I could easily accomplish that with the max-height style, but if I want to resize it, it doesn't work.
The second idea I had, was to just use the height style, but by doing this, the div's not adjusting its height if the contents are smaller than 150px.
Is there any way of doing this without javascript?
I don't think this is possible without JavaScript and even if it would be: What do you want this for? Please take a look at browser support of resize!
(What do you mean by "filled" - is this done via PHP or JS? Actually no matter which one you use, you could check if there is any content and if so add an .empty class to the div)
I am trying to float divs horizontally, however its falling into a new line.
http://jsfiddle.net/nyCrY/4/
It works only if I set width of the #holder higher than its content.
Is there a way to do this without setting the fixed width on #holder?
Thank you!
Not really with pure CSS.
You can use a static width (which you don't want to do), you can use floats + whitespace (which is unreliable), or you can dynamically calculate the necessary width with javascript and set the style's width to that number.
According to this tutorial: http://css-tricks.com/how-to-create-a-horizontally-scrolling-site/
I spent some time playing with the float property and the white-space
property to see if I could find a way to fight browser auto-wrapping,
but I didn't have much luck. Page elements which are floated but do
not have a width exhibit a property where they expand to the width of
the content inside them. I thought perhaps if I put a bunch of float
elements inside of that, it might just keep expanding beyond the width
of the browser window. No dice. There is also a white-space: nowrap;
property in CSS which I thought might be able to be exploited to fight
the auto-wrapping, but it only works for text elements, not blocks or
just any old thing you set to inline. Oh well.
So, he basically is saying, no its not possible with just css.
But he goes on to say that you can do some javascript magic to achieve it:
JavaScript clearly has the ability to manipulate page elements and do
calculations on-the-fly.
Why can't I show a box within a box, within a box, within a box, with 4 different background colors, 4 different div ids, I don't want to specify a width, I only see two colors when I should see 4?
Thanks for your help - Matthew
Whey can't I show tags? This is kind of complicated!!!!
A block element will fill out the dimensions of its parent element unless there are explicit widths set or there is padding inside a containing element. So if you have divs inside divs, make sure you have padding in the containing divs set (if you're not going to set explicit widths)
you must set some min-height and min-width style and then you can give proper style each div
DEMO
You need to specify a height. The div could be 0x0 and that's probably not what you want.
Below is an example of what we think you want but I specified a height and width.
http://jsfiddle.net/8T6KG
Update:
As recommended, I removed the width and height:
http://jsfiddle.net/8T6KG/3/
can you paste some sample code? plus, you can try setting the position to relative. And I think the outer most div needs to have some height and width set.
The font size I need to match the design I have is 85pt, which is extremely large. In IE6 and IE7, my design is affected because the divs that contain these elements become larger than they normally are, and as a result, elements under these are pushed further down, somewhat breaking the design. I have the height defined for these elements and when I decrease the font size, the elements begin to shrink to the correct size. I've added line-height: 0; to the element and this works in all modern browsers.
Unfortunately, the design I'm working on cannot be shown publicly, but I was hoping to get some insight into other possible techniques that I could try to get the design to render correctly. The height of the parent element is 144px, which includes 10px padding on top and bottom and a top and bottom 1px border.
Unfortunately there's not a lot more that I can add to this, but I'll include whatever info I can if asked.
line-height:0 is a great start. However, I'm a little concerned about the 10px padding on the parent element. Whenever you mix padding with IE, you start to lose control over width & height.
I'd start by removing the padding-top on the parent and convert that into a margin-top:10px on the actual child element. If that still gives you trouble, remove the margin and try a position:relative on the child with a top:10px.
Finally, try adding a overflow:hidden to your parent element to force it to not budge when the font-size gets larger.
All this depends on what your child element actually is. If you convert it to an inline element (like a span, em, or strong) it might help alleviate some rendering issues, depending on your predefined styles.
Another thing to consider - are you using floats? Sometimes you'll get a double-float issue with IE and floats. A quick google for "IE double float" will show you why.
Does that help?
Convert the font-sizes to pixels and use px instead of pt. Make sure there that padding, margin and border is 0. Verify that there are no whitespace in your HTML except for between words. Whitespace can end up being displayed as a newline or space, making elements bigger than intended. Also don't set line-height to 0, set it to either auto or the same as font-size.
Thank you all for your input. Originally I needed absolute positioning on the element in question, while the parent element had relative positioning. However, using this with line-height: 0 caused the text to disappear in IE6 and 7; after trying to figure out where the text was initially, I removed absolute positioning and decided to leave the text left aligned in IE6 and 7, which affected the position of other elements as a result. I revisited the original absolute positioning and added border to the element to reveal its location. Doing this showed that it was exactly as I defined it: an element with a line-height of 0px, so the top and bottom borders were next to each other. For IE6 and 7, I defined line-height: 100%; and my text was almost where I needed it. I added top and the needed pixels and now my element is in the correct position with its line-height not affecting any of the other elements because of the positioning.
Thank you all again for your assistance.
My first thought when reading your post was to adjust the line-height, but since you've already done that, I'm not sure how much more can be done. From your summary, I gather that the design cannot be modified to account for the large font sizes.
Another answerer recommended using pixel sizes, but I would recommend using ems as they are percentage dimensions and will be more consistent across browsers, screens, and resolutions.
Line-height can be left as 0 (or set it to the height of the parent element), but you will likely see the text floating over other elements if the text's height surpasses the line-height.
Any possible way you could use an image for the text instead? That's really the only fool-proof method for getting all browsers to look consistent.