I have an element that is 50% width, and inside that element are two more elements, one of the elements is a fixed 100px wide, and I want the other element to take up the rest of the containing element, but cant work it out.
The element I want to take up the remaining space in the container has this css
#header_search {float:left; width:50%}
Obviously 50% with isnt right. But not sure what it should be.
https://jsfiddle.net/mux7e7b4/
How is that done?
Give the element you want to take up most of the width the following CSS,
width: calc(100% - 100px);
Here's how it would look in your example (updated your fiddle)
Note that the input element has a border around it which sets off calculations, so box-sizing:border-box; is necessary to include the border within the total element width.
Calc() is not recognized in IE8 and below.
It also doesn't work on some older Android phones that haven't been updated.
Best practice is to use some kind of a fallback for graceful degradation, depending on your specific use-case.
Related
I'm trying to leverage the css 'column-count' in combination with CSS padding, and and I'm observing that if I specify a column count of 3, the browser renders part of a fourth column if content doesn't fit. as shown below
Here is a JSFidle -> https://jsfiddle.net/w40jcykp/1/
I'm seeing this in Chrome & Edge. is this a known issue, or is there a workaround for this?
Thank you kindly.
The CSS below.
.newspaper {
column-count: 3;
min-height:144px;
height:144px;
padding:20px;
column-gap:10px;
border: 1px solid black;
overflow:hidden;
}
I think the issue here is that you've set a fixed height on your container. With the fixed height, the columns can't grow, so the rendering engine keeps making more columns to fit your content inside the container.
If you turn off overflow: hidden in your fiddle, you'll see that there actually a bunch more columns overflowing out of the side of your box. The padding just allows part of one of them to be visible.
The root cause here is height balancing. From MDN:
The CSS3 Column specification requires that the column heights must be
balanced: that is, the browser automatically sets the maximum column
height so that the heights of the content in each column are
approximately equal. Firefox does this.
However, in some situations it is also useful to set the maximum
height of the columns explicitly, and then lay out content starting at
the first column and creating as many columns as necessary, possibly
overflowing to the right. Therefore, if the height is constrained, by
setting the CSS height or max-height properties on a multi-column
block, each column is allowed to grow to that height and no further
before adding new column. This mode is also much more efficient for
layout.
Since you've set the height, height balancing says that the browser will fix columns to that height, and will create as many columns as it needs to display your content.
You'll need to remove your fixed height if you want your columns to grow and flow correctly and obey your column-count property.
I encountered a problem and didn't find a solution for this. I'm pretty confused because I thought this was a very simple requirement.
There are the following elements:
a surrounding div#wrapper
div#A, floating left and fixed width
div#B, floating left (right of #A) and dynamic width
Inside of div#B there are plenty of images, floating left and fixed width (and height).
Depending on the screen resolution there should be 1, 2, 3, n columns of images on the right part of the screen (next to div#A). Instead of this, container #B is aligned below container #A and uses the full window width.
My alternative attempt was giving #B a float:right and a margin-left (which was greater than the width of #A), but that also didn't work.
I would like to avoid absolute positioning because the height of the surrounding wrapper should increase with its content.
To visualize what I'm talking about, I made the following diagram:
http://abload.de/img/rezeptbilder1k8lsr.png
Many thanks in advance!
this is happening because..you are having dynamic width for your div#B...ans as there are plenty of images and they are aligned next to each other...so eventually div#B grows to 100% width...when it has 100% width then it arrives under the div#A.because 100% + div#A's width cant fit together in a 100% wide screen..you understand???
1st solution :: you may use width:calc(100% - div#a's width).it will give div#b a width equals to remaining free space besides div#a
or you may use overflow:hidden in your div#B...now at first this div will grow eventually to take the width of remaining free space with a single row of images and once it has 100% width it will create another row of images..but for this your wrapper must have fixed with with **overflow:auto;** also..overflow:auto; in wrapper will introduce scroll bar when combined with of div A and B is greater than 100%
EDIT :: CHECK BROWSER SUPPORTS FOR CALC() HERE
note::if you provide us your try our suggestion will be more appropriate
I can't really provide a solution because you haven't provided any code. (please do so)
That said... Based on your description and your image, your floats on div#A and div#B are breaking. The most common reason for this is that your width is adding up to be more than 100% of the width of your div#wrapper (the containing or parent element of the floated elements)
Your floats should always end up equally 100% (less than 100% works but then you have some extra space somewhere etc).
For example... If you have #wrapper which is 100px wide, then you can have two div's inside which are 50px and 50px wide, or 30px and 70px etc. as adding those values = 100px which is 100%.
So... Why is yours breaking? I suspect it is because you are trrying to mix a dynamic width element, with a static width element. Float was never designed do something like this. There are various ways to achieve it, but which way depends on your code which I don't have.
Other possible reasons why is is breaking is because of too much margin space, too much padding, or even a border on your divs. The width of an element, by default includes it's padding, margin, and border widths. If you have a 100px wide div, with 10px of padding on the left and right and a 2 px border the whole way around (2px on each side). Then you have a div with a total width of 124px.
http://jsfiddle.net/Wdrgv/
So I want to put this bad animation at the bottom of the screen. Simple enough, right?
Nope. When I put position: absolute on the marquee-container, the animation seems to disappear off the screen.
I figure I'm doing something really stupid here, but I can't see what.
The problem is that when you apply the absolute positioning to the container, 'display: block; no longer stretches it to 100% of its container's width, and since it has no relatively-positioned contents to define its dimensions, it relies solely on explicitly defined values (height: 24px) or zero if none exist. I've fixed the problem for you by defining width: 100% for your containing element. I've also added a few tweaks to make the size and behavior of your marquee a little more robust given varying text lengths:
http://jsfiddle.net/Wdrgv/2/
I was able to get it to work by changing from absolute to fixed and applying bottom:0px; to it.
See here: http://jsfiddle.net/Wdrgv/1/
I'm working on a website for a client, and I'm not excellent at css... still in the process of learning a lot about divs. I made a div that is supposed to stretch 100% of the page, and it works, unless a user is browsing from a lower resolution (1024 x 768 for example) and has to scroll horizontally, the div will then only extend to the original length of the browser window.
That coupled with the fact that my footer is behaving the same way, and is not sticking to the bottom of the page.
The code/website can be found at:
http://cliqthis.com/temp/roadhouse/index.php
Thank you for any assistance, or an explanation of why this is happening would be helpful as I am still in the process of learning.
You see the scrollbar for resolution 1024x768 because <div id='container'> has a width of 1064 pixels set on it. The parent div will have a minimum width of 1064 due to this.
Are we talking about the black bars not extending all the way to the right?
You need to make sure not only that those divs' widths are 100%, but that all their ancestors' widths are also 100%. With normal (static) positioning, the 100% width means 100% of the element's parent's width.
Using the Web Developer addon in Firefox, with Outline Current Element turned on should prove very helpful in determining which elements aren't as wide as they need to be. (Move your mouse around the page and it will outline the element you're over, and tell you the css selector path to it).
Also you might want to compare the structure to the original template you used. It seems odd to me that, for example, you have an empty div.#footer element, and then a table.foot element after it, rather than inside of it. Perhaps you accidentally broke something there?
Set up a minimum width for the div.
div.class { /* ... */ min-width: ___px !important; /* ... */ }
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.