CSS, Display : block - css

There is a menu i have implemented lately, This is the link to the menu tutorial: http://pepsized.com/css-only-lavalamp-like-fancy-menu-effect/, My question take place at:
.nav a {
display: block; // This line here
position: relative;
float: left;
padding: 1em 0 2em;
width: 25%;
text-decoration: none;
color: #393939;
transition: .7s; }
.nav a:hover {
color: #c6342e; }
As you can check on this page: http://pepsized.com/demo/?id=1043 (The reason i want you to check on this page is so you can see effect take place for all 3 examples), So if you remove the display : block nothing is changed, All work the same way it worked with display : blcok, So i assume the display : block, Is mabye for older browsers, different browsers, But i can't point the reason, So if anyone know why the display : block, I will be very thankful, Thank you all and have a nice day.

float: left or float: right forces display to have a computed value of block.
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visuren.html#dis-pos-flo
That is why removing display: block makes no difference. You can safely remove it if you want to.
The only possible reason to leave it there is to show your intent to anyone reading your CSS: that you want the element to be shown as a block-level element.
It was probably included in the first place because the author of that CSS was unaware that float forces display: block.

Display: block tells the browser that you want a certain element displayed in a "block": it is the only element on that "line" of the browser (so you can't fit multiple elements next to each other). You can also have "inline", which is the opposite. Source: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/display

SOURCE w3c
In a block formatting context, boxes are laid out one after the other,
vertically, beginning at the top of a containing block. The vertical
distance between two sibling boxes is determined by the 'margin'
properties. Vertical margins between adjacent block boxes in a block
formatting context collapse.
In a block formatting context, each box's left outer edge touches the
left edge of the containing block (for right-to-left formatting, right
edges touch). This is true even in the presence of floats (although a
box's content area may shrink due to the floats).
AND ANSWER OF YOUR QUESTION
position:relative or float:left/right; makes an element to behave like an block element..display:block; wont have any effect if you are using position:relative; or float:left/right;

Here you can find all the values of the display property and its behaviour: http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/pr_class_display.asp

Related

Simple spacing CSS

I have designed a navbar for my website; you can see it at http://jsfiddle.net/ToddStyles/D2tZH/.
What CSS I would use to change the spacing between them? I used an unordered list to make it and changed the display to inline.
When you are displaying elements inline, HTML will parse any whitespace as a spacebar character. So, you can either comment out the space between list items, i.e.:
<li>...</li><!--
--><li>...</li>
Or, display them as block level elements and float them:
ul {
overflow: hidden; /* To prevent collapse */
}
ul li {
display: block;
float: left;
}
With regards to the Fiddle you have posted, you have used the <img> tag incorrectly. It is self-closing, and it should not be used to nest anything.
p/s: And please, don't use link shortener just because SO prevents you from posting a Fiddle link due to a lack of code. The rule is there for a reason — providing us code gives your question context.
If you’re looking to increase the width, you can apply a left margin to consecutive <li>s easily:
#navbar li + li {
margin-left: 0.2em;
}
Here’s your fiddle back. I fixed it to use inline-block to make the layout break less when it inevitably wraps on a smaller screen. And do take into account that we can’t see images on your computer across the internet.

What is the purpose of float:left on an unordered list when creating a horizontal navigation bar?

The code sample below works almost the same, if I include or remove the 'float: left' line. The only difference is the float left version moves the blocks below it up a bit more, but not more than a line break. I don't understand why you would add floating to an element set to 100% width. To my understanding,this prevents everything below it from flowing around it. Isn't that the purpose of floating?
ul
{
list-style-type: none;
float: left;
width:100%;
padding:0;
margin:0;
}
li
{
display: inline;
}
The reason why this works is because your <li> display is set to inline. This means that all elements with of this HTML tag will show up on the same line as all other ones. In other words, there will be no line-break. I would suggest the following instead:
ul {
list-style-type: none;
width: 100%;
padding: 0px;
margin: 0px;
overflow: hidden; /* This will ensure there's a line break after using float for the list items */
}
li {
float: left;
}
This way you can ensure that each list item can also use margin and padding properly as opposed to inline elements which act as characters in a string of text normally would.
The float property is meant to allow an object to be displayed inline with the text directing it to one side. Float left is thus a lot like inline but with the exception that the element being floated is aligned towards the left or the right. It is not necessary to use the float:left; flag for what you are trying to do, It can often be better to place the ul where you want it using position, margin, padding, left , top , right , bottom instead. This usualy gives a more controllable result.
Here is an example fiddle of what happens when switching between no float and float left.
http://jsfiddle.net/um9LV/
The float CSS property specifies that an element should be taken from the normal flow and placed along the left or right side of its container, where text and inline elements will wrap around it.
when an element is floated it is taken out of the normal flow of the document. It is shifted to the left or right until it touches the edge of it's containing box or another floated element.
float:left - use float to get block elements to slide next to each other
display:block - Displaying the links as block elements makes the whole link area clickable (not just the text), and it allows us to specify the width

CSS - Cannot get one spanned style to override another inherited style and align left

I have a div classed content.
Inside the div, is a h1 tag.
Inside the h1 tag is a span tag, with its' class set to regTalker.
Here is the tag:
<h1><span class="regTalker">Not Listed? Register here</span>Browse Listings</h1>
The regTalker class looks like this:
.regTalker {
text-align: left !important;
font-family: GoodDog;
font-size: 0.7em;
color: #000;
}
The container div has text-align value set to center.
The main string inside of the h1 tag displays centered.
The string inside of the span tag is also centered, not aligned to the left, as i would presume it to be...
What gives? Surely !important should override the content div text-align value?
There are two different css files in question, the main one, and the seconary one, which houses the regTalker class... These files are linked one after each other, so incase this comes up in an answer, it is not due to the instance of inclusion.
I have also cleared my cache and reloaded the css file directly. So its not that either.
I am using firefox 8.0.1, have not tried it on other browsers yet.
If anyone has any advice, or input regarding this issue, or how to solve the problem, it would be greatly appreciated, thank you!
The text-align applies to the content of the element it's applied to, not the element itself. The text inside the span is left-aligned, but the span itself is centre-aligned within its parent. As the span is an inline level element, it's only ever as wide as its content and as the span is centre aligned, its content will also appear to be centre-aligned...
If the span was as wide as its container, then the text in it would appear left-aligned, but you have to apply a display: block or display: inline-block to it before you can assign it a width.
Also, never use !important. It'll just lead to tears and gnashing of teeth in the long run.
You're slightly misunderstanding how text-align works. You can't use text-align to change the alignment of a span within its container; text-align affects the contents of the element it's applied to, and cannot affect its context. (If your span were a block element, your declaration would make its contents align left within it, but would still not make the span itself align left within its container.)
I have used this to answer the problem most described in comments for the answer from GordonM:
.regTalker {
position: relative;
top: -5px;
left: -20%;
margin-right: -10%;
font-family: GoodDog;
font-size: 0.7em;
color: #000;
}
This was used to keep the main text within the h1 tag roughly centered, while applying positioning to the span element within it.

Remove white space below image [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Image inside div has extra space below the image
(10 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
In Firefox only my video thumbnails are displaying mysterious 2-3 pixels of white space between the bottom of my image and its border (see below).
I've tried everything I can think of in Firebug with no luck.
How can I remove this white space?
You're seeing the space for descenders (the bits that hang off the bottom of 'y' and 'p') because img is an inline element by default. This removes the gap:
.youtube-thumb img { display: block; }
You can use code below if you don't want to modify block mode:
img{vertical-align:text-bottom}
Or you can use following as Stuart suggests:
img{vertical-align:bottom}
If you would like to preserve the image as inline you can put vertical-align: top or vertical-align: bottom on it. By default it is aligned on the baseline hence the few pixels beneath it.
I've set up a JSFiddle to test several different solutions to this problem. Based on the [vague] criteria of
1) Maximum flexibility
2) No weird behavior
The accepted answer here of
img { display: block; }
which is recommended by a lot of people (such as in this excellent article), actually ranks fourth.
1st, 2nd, and 3rd place are all a toss-up between these three solutions:
1) The solution given by #Dave Kok and #Hasan Gursoy:
img { vertical-align: top; } /* or bottom */
pros:
All display values work on both the parent and img.
No very strange behavior; any siblings of the img fall where you'd expect them to.
Very efficient.
cons:
In the [perfectly valid] case of both the parent and img having `display: inline`, the value of this property can determine the position of the img's parent (a bit strange).
2) Setting font-size: 0; on the parent element:
.parent {
font-size: 0;
vertical-align: top;
}
.parent > * {
font-size: 16px;
vertical-align: top;
}
Since this one [kind of] requires vertical-align: top on the img, this is basically an extension of the 1st solution.
pros:
All display values work on both the parent and img.
No very strange behavior; any siblings of the img fall where you'd expect them to.
Fixes the inline whitespace problem for any siblings of the img.
Although this still moves the position of the parent in the case of the parent and img both having `display: inline`, at least you can't see the parent anymore.
cons:
Less efficient code.
This assumes "correct" markup; if the img has text node siblings, they won't show up.
3) Setting line-height: 0 on the parent element:
.parent {
line-height: 0;
vertical-align: top;
}
.parent > * {
line-height: 1.15;
vertical-align: top;
}
Similar to the 2nd solution in that, to make it fully flexible, it basically becomes an extension of the 1st.
pros:
Behaves like the first two solutions on all display combinations except when the parent and img have `display: inline`.
cons:
Less efficient code.
In the case of both the parent and img having `display: inline`, we get all sorts of crazy. (Maybe playing with the `line-height` property isn't the best idea...)
So there you have it. I hope this helps some poor soul.
I found this question and none of the solutions here worked for me. I found another solution that got rid of the gaps below images in Chrome. I had to add line-height:0; to the img selector in my CSS and the gaps below images went away.
Crazy that this problem persists in browsers in 2013.
Had this prob, found perfect solution elsewhere if you dont want you use block just add
img { vertical-align: top }
.youtube-thumb img {display:block;} or .youtube-thumb img {float:left;}
Give the height of the div .youtube-thumb the height of the image. That should set the problem in Firefox browser.
.youtube-thumb{ height: 106px }
As stated before, the image is treated as text, so the bottom is to accommodate for those pesky: "p,q,y,g,j"; the easiest solution is to assign the img display:block; in your css.
But this does inhibit the standard image behavior of flowing with the text. To keep that behavior and eliminate the space. I recommend wrapping the image with something like this.
<style>
.imageHolder
{
display: inline-block;
}
img.noSpace
{
display: block;
}
</style>
<div class="imageHolder"><img src="myimg.png" class="noSpace"/></div>

Floating big elements next to each other?

Just a quick question regarding CSS positioning. I have several "segments" on my site which are 100% wide (fills the screen), and I want them floated next to each other. So only the first one will be visible, the other ones will be off-screen. I've tried playing around with positions and the overflow property without luck. Right now they just pop down below each other instead of floating.
This would work perfectly if the elements did not exceed the screen width, but as they do, they just pop down as I said earlier. I've tried setting a huge width to the "wrapper", something like 99999px. And then setting the segments to 100%, but that will just fill the whole 99999px width instead of the screen.
Any ideas?
JSFiddle example: http://jsfiddle.net/9xGPb/
Do you mean like this?
Example Fiddle: here
I used my favourite alternative to floats, inline-blocks
if you actually take it out of the fiddle it has some pretty (gaudy?) colours which show that it allows for the min-width: 900px; on the centered_content div to work too, and I removed the absolute positioning for the menu so the content would go below it, for demo only but you may find it useful..
let me know if any good or if you have any questions
Updated with some jQuery and to make corrections for default word-spacing
New Example: here
re: the IE6/7 hack rightly mentioned in the comments;
.segment {
display: inline-block;
overflow: hidden;
width: 0;
}
.segment {display: inline !ie7;}
needn't be a "parse hack" if that's your preference as long as that second rule is given to [lte IE 7] somehow, and separately at that it cannot be combined into the original rule with the * hack or anything, it won't work.. has to be in a separate ruleset.
I discovered word-spacing might be a problem if relying on width to hide, the natural behaviour of inline blocks is to put 3-4px between the elements like the space in between words, the workaround to this is to correct the word-spacing on the wrapper
.segment-wrapper {
white-space: nowrap;
word-spacing: -4px;
}
then restore it normal for the actual content divs, same place as you would restore the normal wrapping behaviour
.centered_content {
width: 900px;
margin: 0px auto;
background: #fcf;
white-space: normal;
word-spacing: 0;
}
and last, apart from this was fun.. there's 2 effects in that new fiddle - uncomment and comment the other.. forgive me I was playing! :)
The meaning of float is to try to float to the right or left unless there is not room for it.
This means that you cannot ever float an element off the page.
If you need to keep the element off the page, you will need to use a different positioning mechanism like position: absolute.
It sounds like you're creating a horizontal one-page portfolio. I've recently been working on something similar.
Using your fiddle I've set the .segment class to
.segment {width:90%;height:90%;position:absolute;}
and then offset each left positioning further off the screen
#home {background-color:red;left:5%;}
#work {background-color:yellow;left:105%;}
#portfolio {background-color:green;left:205%;}
#contact {background-color:blue;left:305%;}
http://jsfiddle.net/9xGPb/2/
I also added some jQuery logic to switch views for the divs.
I'm still not entirely sure which segments you want to start off the page but this jsfiddle uses positioning to shove the #two div off to the right: http://jsfiddle.net/EdAZP/1/
Which part of your example did you want to start off the page?
Did you try to just hide the other elements and toggle them with some javascript (jQuery is much easier)?
http://api.jquery.com/toggle/

Resources