I'm trying to use percentage height with overflow-y:auto; and instead of creating a scroll bar on the side of the div, it's using the page scroll bar.
Here's an example of want I'm getting at: http://jsfiddle.net/hmwe2jty/
Is it possible to use this property with percent height?
TL;DR Use the viewport height/width instead of a percentage. Change 100% to 100vh, and you're done!
EDIT:
The percentages take the precentage of the parent element. For example:
console.log("Parent's width: " + document.getElementById("parent").offsetWidth);
console.log("Child's width: " + document.getElementById("child").offsetWidth);
#parent {
background: yellow;
width: 500px;
height: 150px;
}
#child {
background: orange;
width: 50%;
height: 100px;
}
<div id="parent">
<div id="child">
I am 250px wide!
</div>
</div>
The new CSS3 viewport units use the user's viewport as a base. For example:
console.log("Parent's width: " + document.getElementById("parent").offsetWidth);
console.log("Child's width: " + document.getElementById("child").offsetWidth);
#parent {
background: yellow;
width: 500px;
height: 150px;
}
#child {
background: orange;
width: 50vw;
height: 100px;
}
<div id="parent">
<div id="child">
My width is 50% of the user's viewport, regardless of the size of my parent!
</div>
</div>
Because the body element is a bit weird, it's default behaviour is to shrink to fit is contents. So:
body {
background: yellow;
border: 1px solid red;
}
The body element wraps around it contents, <br>
but the backgound just ignores this behaviour.
So, since the parent element is the body, you will need to use the new vw and vh units. Read a article on CSS Tricks
EDIT 2:
Another way to choose the viewport as parent would be to make the element's position either fixed or absolute. In that instance the parent would become the viewport, thus giving you the needed value.
use this css for div which height must dimensioned in percents of parent element:
.child {
position: absolute;
top: 10px;
bottom: 0px;
}
It is considering 100% of the parent, which is the body. Hence it occupies the height of complete space available. Specify height a lesser amount in % rather than 100 (if you specifically prefer percent). It is upto you what you chose.
I am trying to set the width of the .full_height_div element using pure css, based on its height. It has to be width-relative-to-height, and not height-relative-to-width. The reason for this is that the parent container (.set_rectangle_height) is already a div with height relative to the page width. Obviously, as the page is resized the divs on the page will resize, so i cannot set a fixed width in px for the .full_height_div child.
So .rectangle and .set_rectangle_height make up the parent container which has a width as a percentage of the page and a height relative to this width. See here for an explanation for this method.
But the problem is that then I want to place a div inside the parent with height: 100% and width relative to this height. The aim is then that I will be able to alter the browser window size and everything will keep its aspect ratio.
here is my failed attempt:
.rectangle
{
position: relative;
width: 30%;/*the outermost div is always a % of the page
width, even while resizing*/
display:inline-block;
background-color: green;
}
.set_rectangle_height
{
padding-bottom: 30%;/*this sets the height of the outermost div
to a ratio of 1:3*/
position: relative;
float: left;
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
}
.full_height_div/*this is the div that i want to have a width relative
to its height*/
{
height: 100%;
width: 20px;/*i will delete this once .square_set_width is working*/
position: absolute;
background-color: red;
}
.square_set_width
{
display: inline-block;
padding-left: 100%; /*i want to use something like this line to set
the width of this div to be equal to .full_height_div's height - ie a 1:1 aspect
ratio, but padding-left does not work :( */
position: relative;
height: 100%;
background-color: blue;
}
<div class='rectangle'>
<div class='set_rectangle_height'>
<div class='full_height_div'>
<div class='square_set_width'></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
So, this is what the above incorrect markup looks like:
And this is what i want it to look like:
I know I could find the blue square percentage height in javascript, then set the width to be equal to this height, but it would be really handy if there is a pure css fix for what I am trying to do. I will be using this structure a lot and I don't really want to go writing code to resize all the divs on my page.
you have to use javascript for that. If I understood you, you want a perfect blue square. Use
var height = $('.square_set_width').height();
$('.square_set_width').css('width',height);
here is a jsfiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/a8kxu/
Edit: instead of doing padding-bottom: 30% do height: 70% instead. Here is another fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/a8kxu/1/
Edit #2: Sorry, but you cant use css to do this. Its not powerful enough
If i understand you correctly
you can do
#divID {
width: 75%;
margin-left: auto; // this is used to center the container
margin-right: auto;// this as well
}
I have a middle container that takes up whatever vertical space is left on the screen. In it, I placed a Jquery scroller that is currently set to 200px:
.scroll-pane
{
width: 100%;
height: 200px;
overflow: auto;
}
.horizontal-only
{
height: auto;
max-height: 100%;
}
However, if I set .scroll-pane height to 100%, it just removes the scrollbar and stretches the whole page.
See JsFiddle here
How can I stop this? Thanks!
Here is my solution to this problem (jsfiddle). It uses markup like this:
<div id="top">...</div>
<div id="wrapper">
<div id="middle">...</div>
</div>
<div id="bottom">...</div>
The top and bottom divs are position absolutely at the top and bottom, with a width of 100%. The wrapper div has height: 100%, box-sizing: border-box, and top and bottom padding equal to the height of the top and bottom divs, respectively. This causes it to fill the viewport but have padding underneath the top and bottom divs. The middle div has a height of 100% so it fills the content box of the wrapper (i.e., 100% minus the top and bottom paddings). It has position: relative, which leaves you free to use height: 100% on both interior boxes.
Lastly, middleleft is positioned absolutely and middleright has a left margin equal to its width, which causes it to fill the remaining horizontal space.
height: 100% never works like you want it to. The CSS specifications dictate that it must equal the height of the browser window, or the closest parent block-level element with an absolute height specified. That means that this code will should not work as expected:
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<title>Want the body to fill the page? Too bad!</title>
<style type="text/css">
html, body {
height: 100%;
}
.page {
padding-top: 50px;
box-sizing: border-box;
height: 100%;
}
.header {
margin-top: -50px;
height: 50px;
}
.body {
height: 100%;
background: gray;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="page">
<div class="header">
<h1>Too bad!</h1>
</div>
<div class="body">
<p>Hello cruel world...</p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
However, that works fine in Chrome. Why? I can only assume that Google decided to specifically go against web standards because in this case, the standards make no sense. Why would I want something to be the exact height of the browser window? The only time is a <div> wrapping the whole page; in this case a simple "height is relative to the parent block" rule works just fine without breaking expectations elsewhere.
There is a way around this, though. At least, that's what I wanted to say before I tried this in Firefox too. Another way to get height: 100% (with some restrictions) is with position: absolute. However, it would seem that Firefox isn't respecting position: relative on a display: table-cell element - probably those pesky standards again. Here's the code for this technique anyway, if you are interested:
#wrapper > div > #middleleft {
position: relative;
}
.scroll-pane {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
right: 0;
bottom: 0;
left: 0;
}
So what can you do? Well, unfortunately, I don't yet know the answer to that. A kludgy solution would be to have Javascript set the height to an absolute pixel value, and attach an event to window resizing in order to update that height. I'll get back to you if I find a better way.
I'm not sure exactly what your trying to do, but another method would be to set body height to 100%, then set scrollpane to "height: auto". Then for the "top" and "bottom" div's used fixed positioning, plus margin equal to top/bottom height.
body {
height: 100%;
}
.top {
position: fixed;
top: 0;
height: 100px;
}
.middle {
height: auto;
margin: 100px auto;
}
.bottom {
position: fixed;
bottom: 0;
height: 100px;
}
<div class="top">content</div>
<div class="middle">content</div>
<div class="bottom">content</div>
Try that...
How do you style a div in Bootstrap to span the entire width of the viewport (without fixed positioning) within the normal 12-grid system of "rows" and "spans"?
In the Bootstrap source, the navbar-fixed-top class achieves this effect using a fixed position and left and right attributes:
.navbar-fixed-top,
.navbar-fixed-bottom {
position: fixed;
right: 0;
left: 0;
z-index: 1030;
margin-bottom: 0;
}
However, this navbar stays in the window regardless of scrolling. What styles are necessary to achieve the same entire width of the viewport without fixed positioning?
You can get that effect by stretching the body and html tags 100% in height and width and then defining a child div to that same width. We do that because width and height are relative, so if we define a div 100% in width/height it will only stretch so far as the body and html tag. Take a look at this example:
html, body {
width:100%;
height:100%;
}
body {
padding-top:60px;
}
.wrapper {
height: 100%;
width: 100%;
}
.huge {
width:100%;
height:100%;
background-color:#eee;
}
Demo, edit here.
Note: There is some extra height added to the body of the .huge div due to the padding-top added to the body to make way for the top navbar, if that padding is removed it will become a "true" 100% height and not 100% height + top 60px as it is now.
If you want to utilize Bootstrap 3 grid and build full-width layouts (stretching row to the entire viewport width) you should consider two things:
Bootstrap's .row class sets the margin property to: margin: 0 -15px;.
Grid content should be wrapped in a containing element to offset the aforesaid margin.
CSS
.container-full-width {
padding: 0 15px; /* Offset .row's margin */
width: 100%;
}
/* Optional. See comment below. */
.row {
padding-left: 70px;
padding-right: 70px;
}
HTML
<body>
<div class="container-full-width">
<div class="row">
...
</div>
</div>
...
</body>
Bear in mind that the .row elements will have no margin, but it can be fixed by overriding the padding property of the .row class and setting the expected margin.
Alternatively you could consider overriding .row class and offsetting a margin value, but this requires setting different values for different media/device types.
It is worth checking whether it works in Bootstrap 2 likewise.
With HTML/CSS, how can I make an element that has a width and/or height that is 100% of it's parent element and still has proper padding or margins?
By "proper" I mean that if my parent element is 200px tall and I specify height = 100% with padding = 5px I would expect that I should get a 190px high element with border = 5px on all sides, nicely centered in the parent element.
Now, I know that that's not how the standard box model specifies it should work (although I'd like to know why, exactly...), so the obvious answer doesn't work:
#myDiv {
width: 100%
height: 100%;
padding: 5px;
}
But it would seem to me that there must be SOME way of reliably producing this effect for a parent of arbitrary size. Does anyone know of a way of accomplishing this (seemingly simple) task?
Oh, and for the record I'm not terribly interested in IE compatibility so that should (hopefully) make things a bit easier.
EDIT: Since an example was asked for, here's the simplest one I can think of:
<html style="height: 100%">
<body style="height: 100%">
<div style="background-color: black; height: 100%; padding: 25px"></div>
</body>
</html>
The challenge is then to get the black box to show up with a 25 pixel padding on all edges without the page growing big enough to require scrollbars.
I learned how to do these sort of things reading "PRO HTML and CSS Design Patterns". The display:block is the default display value for the div, but I like to make it explicit. The container has to be the right type; position attribute is fixed, relative, or absolute.
.stretchedToMargin {
display: block;
position:absolute;
height:auto;
bottom:0;
top:0;
left:0;
right:0;
margin-top:20px;
margin-bottom:20px;
margin-right:80px;
margin-left:80px;
background-color: green;
}
<div class="stretchedToMargin">
Hello, world
</div>
Fiddle by Nooshu's comment
There is a new property in CSS3 that you can use to change the way the box model calculates width/height, it's called box-sizing.
By setting this property with the value "border-box" it makes whichever element you apply it to not stretch when you add a padding or border. If you define something with 100px width, and 10px padding, it will still be 100px wide.
box-sizing: border-box;
See here for browser support. It does not work for IE7 and lower, however, I believe that Dean Edward's IE7.js adds support for it. Enjoy :)
The solution is to NOT use height and width at all! Attach the inner box using top, left, right, bottom and then add margin.
.box {margin:8px; position:absolute; top:0; left:0; right:0; bottom:0}
<div class="box" style="background:black">
<div class="box" style="background:green">
<div class="box" style="background:lightblue">
This will show three nested boxes. Try resizing browser to see they remain nested properly.
</div>
</div>
</div>
The better way is with the calc() property. So, your case would look like:
#myDiv {
width: calc(100% - 10px);
height: calc(100% - 10px);
padding: 5px;
}
Simple, clean, no workarounds. Just make sure you don't forget the space between the values and the operator (eg (100%-5px) that will break the syntax. Enjoy!
According the w3c spec height refers to the height of the viewable area e.g. on a 1280x1024 pixel resolution monitor 100% height = 1024 pixels.
min-height refers to the total height of the page including content so on a page where the content is bigger than 1024px min-height:100% will stretch to include all of the content.
The other problem then is that padding and border are added to the height and width in most modern browsers except ie6(ie6 is actually quite logical but does not conform to the spec). This is called the box model. So if you specify
min-height: 100%;
padding: 5px;
It will actually give you 100% + 5px + 5px for the height. To get around this you need a wrapper container.
<style>
.FullHeight {
height: auto !important; /* ie 6 will ignore this */
height: 100%; /* ie 6 will use this instead of min-height */
min-height: 100%; /* ie 6 will ignore this */
}
.Padded {
padding: 5px;
}
</style>
<div class="FullHeight">
<div class="Padded">
Hello i am padded.
</div
</div>
1. Full height with padding
body {
margin: 0;
}
.container {
min-height: 100vh;
padding: 50px;
box-sizing: border-box;
background: silver;
}
<div class="container">Hello world.</div>
2. Full height with margin
body {
margin: 0;
}
.container {
min-height: calc(100vh - 100px);
margin: 50px;
background: silver;
}
<div class="container">Hello world.</div>
3. Full height with border
body {
margin: 0;
}
.container {
min-height: 100vh;
border: 50px solid pink;
box-sizing: border-box;
background: silver;
}
<div class="container">Hello world.</div>
This is one of the outright idiocies of CSS - I have yet to understand the reasoning (if someone knows, pls. explain).
100% means 100% of the container height - to which any margins, borders and padding are added. So it is effectively impossible to get a container which fills it's parent and which has a margin, border, or padding.
Note also, setting height is notoriously inconsistent between browsers, too.
Another thing I've learned since I posted this is that the percentage is relative the container's length, that is, it's width, making a percentage even more worthless for height.
Nowadays, the vh and vw viewport units are more useful, but still not especially useful for anything other than the top-level containers.
Another solution is to use display:table which has a different box model behaviour.
You can set a height and width to the parent and add padding without expanding it. The child has 100% height and width minus the paddings.
JSBIN
Another option would be to use box-sizing propperty. Only problem with both would be they dont work in IE7.
Another solution: You can use percentage units for margins as well as sizes. For example:
.fullWidthPlusMargin {
width: 98%;
margin: 1%;
}
The main issue here is that the margins will increase/decrease slightly with the size of the parent element. Presumably the functionality you would prefer is for the margins to stay constant and the child element to grow/shrink to fill changes in spacing. So, depending on how tight you need your display to be, that could be problematic. (I'd also go for a smaller margin, like 0.3%).
A solution with flexbox (working on IE11): (or view on jsfiddle)
<html>
<style>
html, body {
height: 100%; /* fix for IE11, not needed for chrome/ff */
margin: 0; /* CSS-reset for chrome */
}
</style>
<body style="display: flex;">
<div style="background-color: black; flex: 1; margin: 25px;"></div>
</body>
</html>
(The CSS-reset is not necessarily important for the actual problem.)
The important part is flex: 1 (In combination with display: flex at the parent). Funnily enough, the most plausible explanation I know for how the Flex property works comes from a react-native documentation, so I refer to it anyway:
(...) flex: 1, which tells a component to fill all available space, shared evenly amongst other components with the same parent
To add -webkit and -moz would be more appropriate
-webkit-box-sizing: border-box;
-moz-box-sizing: border-box;
box-sizing: border-box;
Frank's example confused me a bit - it didn't work in my case because I didn't understand positioning well enough yet. It's important to note that the parent container element needs to have a non-static position (he mentioned this but I overlooked it, and it wasn't in his example).
Here's an example where the child - given padding and a border - uses absolute positioning to fill the parent 100%. The parent uses relative positioning in order to provide a point of reference for the child's position while remaining in the normal flow - the next element "more-content" is not affected:
#box {
position: relative;
height: 300px;
width: 600px;
}
#box p {
position: absolute;
border-style: dashed;
padding: 1em;
top: 0;
right: 0;
bottom: 0;
left: 0;
}
<div id="box">
<p>100% height and width!</p>
</div>
<div id="more-content">
</div>
A useful link for quickly learning CSS positioning
This is the default behavior of display: block The fastest way that you can fix it in 2020 is to set display: 'flex' of parent element and padding e.g. 20px then all its children will have 100% height relative to its height.
Border around div, rather than page body margin
Another solution - I just wanted a simple border around the edge of my page, and I wanted 100% height when the content was smaller than that.
Border-box didn't work, and the fixed positioning seemed wrong for such a simple need.
I ended up adding a border to my container, instead of relying on the margin of the body of the page - it looks like this :
body, html {
height: 100%;
margin: 0;
}
.container {
width: 100%;
min-height: 100%;
border: 8px solid #564333;
}
<style type="text/css">
.stretchedToMargin {
position:absolute;
width:100%;
height:100%;
}
</style>