I'm applying a background to a div like so:
<div class="bgimg">test</div>
.bgimg {
padding-top: 10px;
&::after {
background: url('/assets/img/test.png') no-repeat center center;
}
}
The path to the image is dynamic and stored in the component:
export class MyComponent {
myImage: string = "/assets/img/test.png";
So to my div element I want to apply an ngStyle but I don't know how to specify :after
<div
[ngStyle]="background: url('{myImage}') no-repeat center center;">
test
</div>
By using the ::after pseudo class you are not applying the background to either the parent div or any other element. It's not clear why you want to use ::after to show a background.
You need to include ng-style such as: <div ng-style="bgimg">test</div> so that Angular can reference the element.
Once you have that, you can call bgimg={'background-image':'url(myImage)'} and it will apply the background to the referenced element.
For more information, take a look at this Angular documentation and this example code you can play with. I hope this helps, but this is my first answer on StackOverflow so bear with me!
Related
TL;DR : Before you read anything, the desired end-result is illustrated in the image below, otherwise refer to the JSFiddle. Preferably, I would like to only use CSS and not modify the DOM structure.
The icons must be aligned completely to the right (hence the .pull-right), but the icons must be stacked vertically (Sometimes some icons must not appear, so they are .hidden, like the .fa-undo icon in the second row).
(When I say 'the icons' i mean the <i> tags and the <img> tag)
The icons must not make the textarea go down (no margin on top of the textarea).
Hopefully, the WIDTH of the textarea would be dynamic and not statically put to width: 90%; for example. It should take as much width as possible, without interfering with the vertical icon stack.
Here is the end result that I want (in a perfect world this would be done using CSS and the same HTML DOM I provided)
In general, images that are UI elements, and not content, should be CSS backgrounds, not inline images. You then use class names to control the image content.
You should be doing this, or something similar:
td.fr {
background-image:url(/images/fr.gif);
background-repeat:no-repeat;
background-position: top right;
}
The same should go for your buttons. Use <button> and style the background.
Not exactly what you wanted I'm afraid, but this is how I'd achieve that result:
fiddle
<div class="pull-right icons">
<img src="http://www.convertnsftopst.net/images/gb.gif" class="pull-right" />
<i class="fa fa-reply"></i>
</div>
td .icons{
width:20px;
text-align:center;
}
Here is the end result that I want (in a perfect world this would be done using CSS and the same HTML DOM I provided)
I was unable to do it without adding another pull-right container, I fear that doing it with only CSS would end up being an odd hack
Fixed here : http://jsfiddle.net/QTXxp/2/
What was lacking when I asked this question was the clear:right; and the use of <div> (or display: block;)
Here is the CSS (if you're too lazy to open the JSFiddle) with the addition of the boostrap class pull-right on the div.icons
textarea.hover-edit {
width: 90% !important;
}
div.icons {
width: 10% !important;
}
div.icons > div > i.fa {
margin-top: 4px;
margin-right: 4px;
}
div.icons > div.action-icon-right {
float:right;
clear:right;
}
I have a website and I should make certain divs transparent. I don't want to duplicate my divs with a transparent tag. I want to archieve something like this.
.wrapper { --div properties-- }
.transparent { --transparency properties --}
I want to set class attributes like this.
<div class="wrapper . transparent"></div>
So this div would get all the properties from wrapper style, then apply a transparent background.
Use class selectors instead of ID selectors:
.wrapper { --div properties-- }
.transparent { --transparency properties --}
And separate your class names by a single space in your HTML markup:
<div class="wrapper transparent"></div>
I'm using jQuery to add a Class to a few elements.
I'm not new to adding classes, nor removing them. But I'm still somewhat intermediate with styles and any flexibility styles can perform to single elements.
Here's what's going on:
I have 2 Divs that I'm affecting with jQuery:
<div id="columnleft">stuff in here</div>
<div id="columncenter">bigger stuff in here</div>
In a nutshell, column left is about 155px wide, while columncenter is positioned relative to columnleft, with a margin-left of 162px
Here's my styles:
<style>
#columnleft {
float:left;
position:relative;
text-align:left;
width:155px;
}
#columncenter {
position:relative;
padding-bottom:50px
margin:0;
margin-left:162px;
}
</style>
I'm basically toggling these 2 divs with the jQuery examples below:
So far I've gotten these 2 separate instances to work:
$("#columnleft").hide();
$("#columncenter").css("margin","0px");
then........
$("#columnleft").show();
$("#columncenter").css("margin-left","162px");
Though this works, I'm not quite satisfied.
I'd prefer to create a class or two that I can use to toggle the hiding of columnleft, while also changing the margin-left at the same time.
It's all fine with the example above, when I'm only using jQuery. But there are times when a page loads, and the columnleft is meant to be hidden, and columncenter is meant to be expanded, from the beginning. Would be nice to not need jQuery to enter the scene at those moments.
All I could come up with is:
<style>
.disappear { display:none; }
.maximize { margin:0px; margin-left:0px; }
</style>
When the page loads:
<div id="columnleft" class="disappear">stuff in here</div>
<div id="columncenter" class="maximize">bigger stuff in here</div>
it seems that columncenter is ignored. (columnleft indeed does disappear)
Also, toggling with jquery, the same result occurs.
Column Center hates me!
Does anyone see where I'm missing the mark?
View JSFiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/tuanderful/bTZq8/
What if you had another div that contains both #columnleft and #columncenter, and has a class of .hide-left or .show-left:
<div class="hide-left">
<div id="columnleft">stuff in here</div>
<div id="columncenter">bigger stuff in here</div>
</div>
Then add the following CSS:
.show-left #columnleft {
display: block;
}
.show-left #columncenter {
margin-left: 162px;
}
.hide-left #columnleft {
display: none;
}
.hide-left #columncenter {
margin-left: 0;
}
You can update your jQuery to simply toggle the .hide-left or .show-left classes on the parent container.
What I did here is similar to adding .disappear and .maximize styling, but I added a bit of context around the two columns. The neat thing is that all of the styling is handled purely by CSS - when you want to show or hide your sidebar, you only need JavaScript to update the state of the container; that is, change the class in the container from hide to show or vice versa.
You need to put !important on the css styling.
.maximize {
margin-left: 0px !important;
}
That makes it so that it overrides any other styling of the same kind. Check it out here.
There is an order of importance in CSS. An id # is considered more important than a class . (there can only be one id and many classes after all). So if you are trying to override an id with a class, you need to use !important.
each type of selector in css is weighted differently id being higher than classes and classes being higher than objects
to fix your problem make the selector as such
#columncenter.maximize
this will overwrite the rule before it
don't use !important while it might work now it can be hard to find out why something is being overridden later on
Can you use the word div to name a div class? or id?
for example:
#div.leftcol
or does it just get seen as
#leftcol
The browser will see that as <div id="div" class="leftcol"></div>
I don't follow what you mean, but I think what you're asking is can you use the word div to apply a class to div elements. If that's what you mean, then yes you can, and you do it exactly as you have shown in your question:
div.leftcol { color: red }
That style would be applied to all elements of type div with class leftcol. Without the div part, the style would apply to any element with class leftcol, regardless of what type of element it is:
.leftcol { color: red }
Edit now the question has been edited...
After the edit to your question, it makes a bit more sense (I think). Your first example would apply to an element with an id of div and a class of leftcol:
<div id="div" class="leftcol"></div>
The second example would apply to an element with an id of leftcol:
<div id="leftcol"></div>
Or if you are simply asking whether div is a some sort of reserved word in CSS, no, it's not, so feel free to use it as an identifier. However, that could get confusing (for example, you could end up with selectors like div.div #div)
can you provide an example?
you can use <div class="leftcol"> left content </div>
and then in your css .leftcol { background:red; }
you can address it either div.leftcol or just simple .leftcol
As in?
<div id="div.leftcol">Some content</div>
While it may work for HTML and Javascript it should cause a problem if you try to style it in a CSS stylesheet. As I am sure you know the following
div.leftcol {
color: #efefef;
}
means "Set the text color to #efefef for any div element that has leftcol as a class name" so it would not work. I have no idea if
div.div.leftcol {
color: #efefef;
}
would work but that is just ugly...
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicates:
How do I prevent CSS inheritance?
is there a way to exclude a tag from css class
I have CSS like this
.div1 img {
// ...
}
.myimg {
// ...
}
and my HTML code is like this,
<div class="div1">
...
<img src="..." class="myimg"> // image html
...
</div>
The css formatting defined in .div1 img is obviously applied to the image html code. However, I actually don't want it happen. What can I do to not to have '.div1 img' effects on that image html code? I don't want to modify the content of div1 img or related html code because it is used in other places already (and it is a template code that I don't want to mess with).
P.S. I cannot remove or modify <div class="div1"> either because there is other template code around.
Thanks.
You have two options:
You can explicitly override all of the styling defined in .div1 img with what they should be in .myimg
You can write .div1 img:not(.myimg) for the first rule.
You could do:
.div1 img:not(.myimg) {
// ...
}
:not selector explained here
There is a nice little not selector that would work, but unfortunately it doesn't work in all browsers.
One sure way to do that is redefine all your .div1 styles in your child .mying class so it overrides the parent.
here is a little demo in jsfiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/u6MnN/1/
mess around with it and see what's best for you.
you need to neutralize all those stylings you are giving to ".div1 img" for example if you say "width:100px" there you need to say "width:auto" in the other one.
Although if you have lots of rules in the first set it would be very dirty this way and you need to change your layout.
If you have img tags inside a container div with class .div1 they will of course get the styling you define in .div1 img, but if you want lets say 2 images out of 8 in that div to have another style (which i believe is why you made class .myimg), you need to put !important after the defined stylings in .myimg like so:
.div1 img
{
height: 125px;
width: 125px;
}
.myimg
{
height: 150px !important;
width: 150px !important;
}
This is only if you are NOT using CSS 3.0