If I have an image on a page with width set to 100% in css it is as wide as the browser. Fine. However, if I make a containing div have display:inline-block, then the image is no longer set to have a width:100%. Instead, it just shows as the actual width of the image:
img {width:100%;}
<img src="http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/0c9109c71ea0524d9fe840f91fabd67bb94a26a9/r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/05/30/1369920769000-grumpycat-1305300933_3_4.jpg"/>
<div style="display:inline-block;">
<img src="http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/0c9109c71ea0524d9fe840f91fabd67bb94a26a9/r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/05/30/1369920769000-grumpycat-1305300933_3_4.jpg"/>
</div>
So, basically, the inline-block containing div wants to be as wide as its contents, and the width:100% on the image wants to be as wide as the containing element, so it seems they are both confused and just defaulting to the width of the image. I know I can set the width of the containing div to be 100% and have the desired outcome, but for what I am actually doing, that is not an option. Is there any way to force the img to be 100% width with only css on the image itself? I guess I am basically trying to set a class on a parent of an element, which I do not think is possible... Ideas?
This is because a percentage value on width is relative to the width of the box's containing block. While a block-level container (<div> element, for instance) takes the entire width of its containing block, an inline-level element doesn't.
Therefore you have to specify the width of the wrapper <div> explicitly. As a thumb rule, when you say 100% you should ask yourself 100% of what?
img { width:100%; }
div { display:inline-block; width: 100%; }
<img src="http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/0c9109c71ea0524d9fe840f91fabd67bb94a26a9/r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/05/30/1369920769000-grumpycat-1305300933_3_4.jpg"/>
<div>
<img src="http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/0c9109c71ea0524d9fe840f91fabd67bb94a26a9/r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/05/30/1369920769000-grumpycat-1305300933_3_4.jpg"/>
</div>
Alternatively, in cases where you want to set the width of elements as the width of the viewport/window, you could use viewport percentage units instead. For instance:
img { width: 100vw; } /* 1vw = 1/100 of the width of the viewport */
Demo:
img { width: 100vw; }
<img src="http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/0c9109c71ea0524d9fe840f91fabd67bb94a26a9/r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/05/30/1369920769000-grumpycat-1305300933_3_4.jpg"/>
<div>
<img src="http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/0c9109c71ea0524d9fe840f91fabd67bb94a26a9/r=537&c=0-0-534-712/local/-/media/USATODAY/USATODAY/2013/05/30/1369920769000-grumpycat-1305300933_3_4.jpg"/>
</div>
I dont think this will help your problem , but technically you could do it by giving it position:absolute;
img {
width:100%;
}
div img {
position:absolute;
margin:0 auto;
width:100% !important;
}
http://jsfiddle.net/kjf8s3rq/
The problem is that you are trying to use dislay-inline in a way contrary to its intended use. If you want the image to take up the full width of the window, then clearly its container must also take up the full width. Which means you want your div to behave like a block element. So the solution is either to do just that and leave the div as display:block (its default value to start with), or at the very least you must set it's width to width:100%. Afterall, if you want to take up the full width of the screen then you want it to be a block.
Inline-block elements have to have their width set, either by specifying a width in the CSS, or by letting them take up as much width as they need to hold their content. In your case the image has its natural size, and your surrounding inline-block div is therefore taking up just that size and no more.
Setting width:100% on the image doesn't change that; that just tells it to take up the full with of its container, not the whole window. But your containing div is already the natural size of the image.
Related
I am working on my CSS skills and by watching Kevin Powell's video "How to use CSS object-fit to control your images", I couldn't understand why the use of either max-width or width would completely alter the result.
Here's the HTML:
<div class="card">
<img class="card__image" src="//unsplash.it/500" alt="">
</div>
And here is the first CSS code (pay attention to tard .card__image 's width)
.card{
background: lightgreen;
width: 350px;
padding: 3rem;
}
.card__image{
width: 100%;
height: 150px;
}
On the second version of the CSS code, we switch .card__image's width to "max-width".
Now I don't understand why when we use "width", the image is stretched out and takes the entire width of the parent element it's inside of, but when we use "max-width",it's as if it no longer focuses on the parent element but on the image itself. It proportionally fixes the image's dimensions so the image would appear in full/no stretch, inside the parent element.
In result, with "width", the image is stretched out and takes the entire parent element's space. With "max-width", the image is not stretched out and simply takes whichever amount of space it needs to.
How come ?
The difference between width: 100% and max-width:100% is that: First,
width define the width of the specific element while max-width define the
maximum size the element is allow to have link
#banner {
background: url(http://www.lazarangelov.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/lazar1-1920.jpg) no-repeat center center/contain;
height: auto;
max-width: 100%;
<div id="banner"></div>
img {
height: auto;
max-width: 100%;}
<img src="http://www.lazarangelov.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/lazar1-1920.jpg" alt="">
I have running always into the problem with the responsive images,and i did not find an answer to clarify the problem.
The problem is with image
image {
height:auto;
width:100%;
}
when i add a simple image and style it, it works. when i start a project more complex with a lot of divs and I set the same properties doesn't work anymore. What's the purest explanation for this.
This is because when you add the <img> to the html directly, the browser sets the height of the element to the height of the image you provided (unless otherwise specified). When you add the image as a background of a <div> and set the height to auto, it tries to size the div to the height of the content. However, in this case, there is no content -- only a background that will be the background once the div has some height. An empty div has no height. Therefore, if you want the image to be the background of the <div>, it must either contain some content, or have its height set manually.
I'm trying to create one of those little fade effects that Google uses at the end of text instead of an ellipsis or simply cutting the text off with overflow:hidden.
I do this by creating a :before element, that I position over the right hand side.
Here's the mixin I use:
.OverflowFadeRight(#color)
{
position:relative;
&:before {
content:"";
height:100%;
position:absolute;
top:0;
right:0;
width:4.8rem;
.GradientLTR(transparent; #color);
}
}
This code works, but what I would like to do is set the width to the same as height so it's always proportional, which is 100% the height of the parent.
I've seen techiques which set height based on width, but can it be done this way round?
You need to use object-fit: contain to achieve this result.
Turns out that creating a square with height:100% using pseudo elements may not be possible.
The way to create a 'responsive square' is to use the img tag.
It allows to set the height and it will proportionally auto-adjust its width.
The alternative to that is to use percentage off the width.
Here's a demo using either one.
<!-- Empty image 1x1 pixels as gif base64 data -->
<div class="OverflowFadeRight2">Real square with img
<img src="" alt="">
</div>
Keeping the w/h:auto resizable ability of an img when its parent is set to display:table and the parent's w/h is not 100%? It seems obvious that if the parent's w/h is not set then its child's w/h:auto makes not much sense. My point is, I want to keep the "resizable ability" of an img if it is inside figure/img/figcaption. Description of the problem:
Big images in a gallery we may want to resize to fit the window size if bigger. If it is just an image it can be done easily setting the image's w/h to auto (and maxw/maxh to 100%), with adding margin:auto we get it even nicely centered. But how to achieve the same with figure/img/figcaption altogether? As we want the figcaption's width to match the width of the image dynamically on the fly (not in px) we need to set figcaption display:table-caption (plus caption-side:bottom) and figure display:table. But once we set the figure display:table and its w/h is not set (or is set to auto, otherwise figcaption width will not match the img's), image w/h:auto don't work any more (not much surprisingly) and we get a not desirable 100% of w/h of the img (will not fit into the window if bigger). Is there any CSS only solution how to keep w/h:auto of the img or somehow achieve the same resizable ability if it is inside figure/img/figcaption?
There are many great approaches out there of how to center or resize elements or images, for example here <codepen.io/shshaw/full/gEiDt> or here <codepen.io/dimsemenov/pen/jhsJL>, but these and many more elsewhere don't work with a set of figure/img/figcaption (or I was unable to make it work). I am troubling myslef with it literally for days long with no clear answer.
In other words, what I need: A figure/img/figcaption set is centered altogether, they will resize if the image is bigger than window size, figcaption must match the width of the image width. All should be done with CSS and without setting anything in px.
So <img> and <figcaption> all go inside a <figure> element. All three are block elements.
You would just set the height and width of your <figure> element, then add a margin auto like you said.
Then set in your css:
img {
width: 100%;
height: auto;
}
figcaption {
text-align: center;
width:100%;
}
And now your image and your caption will always be the width of the figure element, the text will always be centered under the image, and the larger element will always be centered on the page.
EDIT: Adding 100% as a width or height to something means "100% of the parent element". So if you set a width/height for your figure element, the elements inside can be 100% and they won't break the element. Again, all three are block elements already, so you don't need to re-declare them as display: table-caption or whatever. Just use the strength of the block element as it is.
EDIT 2: OKAY. Here's what you need:
Set the figure to a specific height and width in CSS.
Then set the img and figure inside your fig caption to: width: 100%; height: auto;.
Your html looks like this:
<body>
<figure>
<img src="">
<figcaption>Some Text</figcaption>
</figure>
</body>
Now you need a media query in your CSS to handle the size of <figure>
#media screen and (max-width: 600px) {
figure {
width: /*Whatever width you want*/
height: /*Whatever height oyu want*/
}
}
Then repeat your media query for different break points.
If you still think I'm wrong, make a codepen or fiddle with an example and I'll help you from there.
EDIT 3
Here is a JSFiddle demonstrating that you can make a responsive image and element using relative measurements in % and maintaining the image centered to the things around it.
http://jsfiddle.net/o2rv4t9h/1/
I know that min-height: 100% will only work to take up a minimum of 100% of its parent element's height if the parent element has some numeric value for height, but what if I have a few nested divs and I want them all to have a min-height of 100%? I tried min-height:inherit but that didn't work either? I know I can probably solve this problem with JavaScript by simply checking the browser height value on document load and then assigning that to the min-height property of my nested divs, but I'd like to know if it would be possible to solve this with just css?
Edit: I should also mention that I need my outer most div and my nested divs all to have a min-height of 100% such that they take up at least the height of the browser, but expand if needed.
min-height: inherit; should work: http://jsfiddle.net/ugxbs/
EDIT
As for percentage values and the expected behavior, there is no logic behind nested min-height. What you should do is to use the height property for all parents, then add min-height to the inner most DIV.
F.ex:
<html>
<body>
<div class="outer">
<div class="inner"></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
CSS:
html, body, .outer { height: 100% }
.inner { min-height: 100%; }
http://jsfiddle.net/4PsdT/
This way, you are telling the browser to set all outer elements from the top (HTML) to a height of 100%. This will make these elements stretch across the browser height. Then just add a min-height to the inner most element that contains the content.
Setting a height doesn’t mean that it’s children’s excessive content will fall out, unless you add overflow:hidden;.
I can make it work with the property height but not min-height.
http://jsfiddle.net/zDVqm/