I've on my site I've got two images inside their own parents divs (the full structure for each is div a img). The divs have fluid heights (height: 10%;). The images within are set to max-height: 100%;. The images size properly within Webkit, but every other browser seems to have problems with one or both. I've tried searching for possible solutions, but I can't even begin to imagine what the cause even is.
Since it's probably easier to just show you guys, here are the relevant pages and files:
Main page (the center logo image and the "CRASH" logo at the bottom)
CSS (the relevant divs are .logo and .crash)
Below is a breakdown of what I'm seeing. Thanks for any help!
edit: Never actually mentioned what the undesirable result was. In the browsers where it's broken, the images display at 100% -- not at 100% of the parent container, but at the full size of the image itself, breaking out of its container. Hope this clarifies things!
Browser / DIV | .logo | .crash
chrome 22 | works | works (same results on my friend's copy of Safari)
opera 11.61 | broke | broke
ie 9 | works | broke
firefox 12 | works | broke
I figured out it using Firebug in firefox 15.0 and got a solution, Hopefully it will work on all browsers.
1. Remove css rules defined for #footer and add those rules in .crash like below:
.crash {
height: 10%;
position: absolute;
text-align: center;
top: 82%;
width: 100%;
}
2. Add the following rules:
.footerNav {
position: absolute;
text-align: center;
top: 92%;
width: 100%;
}
3. And in .mod-languages replace existing styles with given below:
.mod-languages {
position: absolute;
text-align: center;
top: 96%;
width: 100%;
}
Additional Notes:
Your HTML structure is looking like this:
<div class="moduletable">
<div class="custom">
<div id="logo">
<a href="http://www.millioncranes.com">
</div>
</div>
</div>
So when you wrap moduletable with #footer like below:
<div id="footer">
<div class="moduletable">
<div class="custom">
<div class="crash">
<a title="CRASH Japan" href="http://crashjapan.com">
<img src="/images/crashlogo.png">
</a>
</div>
</div>
</div>
.. /*Another moduletable*/
.. /*Another moduletable*/
</div>
This causing a problem. The style of #footer applying on all moduletable elements inside #footer. So do not need to wrap these elements inside footer. Style your elements like you have styled for #logo, That's it!
Hopefully it will fix your problem in all browsers.
I'm afraid I only have a chromebook here, so I can't test on any non-webkit browser, but here's my guess:
For the rendering engine to know how to apply height: 100% it has to know for sure the height of the container element. People have wrestled with 100% height for a long time.
First, I would make sure your a is display: block so that the img definitely knows how high its container is.
Then I would play around with setting explicit heights for the imgs container elements, and see if any of those fix it - then when you know what the problem is you can find a solution. Hopefully.
Let me know how you get on.
Not all browsers support max-height; see http://caniuse.com/#search=max-height
You don't really say what aspect of the result you don't like: what exactly is the difference between what you expect to happen and what actually happens?
Related
I'm trying to make a dashboard frame (in Bootstrap 5, but I don't think it makes any difference) that works like in these two pictures:
This is basically my current situation:
<html>
<body>
<div class="pretoolbar">pretoolbar (non-essential information, to be hidden when scrolling)
</div>
<div class="sticky-toolbar"> sticky toolbar</div>
<div class="container-fluid">
<div class="sidebar col-3">
[tall sidebar content]
</div>
<main class="col-9">
[also tall content]
</main>
</div>
<body>
</html>
CSS:
.pretoolbar{
background-color: #555;
color:white;
height:32px;
}
.sticky-toolbar{
background-color: black;
color:white;
height:56px;
position:sticky;
top:0;
}
.sidebar{
background-color: white;
position: sticky;
top: 56px;
overflow: hidden auto;
max-height: calc(100vh - 56px);
height: 100%;
}
I'm trying several approaches but it doesn't seem working. What I'm trying is of course position: sticky on the main sticky toolbar and on the sidebar. But due to the different available vertical space (scrolled-top vs scrolled-middle), after declaring a height for the sidebar (calc(100vh - 56px), 56px is the height of the toolbar) it results in the bottom part of the sidebar and its scrollbar to fall out of the viewport bottom. I'm considering flexbox, position:fixed, position:absolute... cannot find a way to get it through.
I also discovered a strange behavior (in Chrome at least) when you place a position:sticky inside a position:fixed
My goal would be to avoid JavaScript, I basically need a sidebar that changes its height after the sticky-state of the toolbar and sticky searchbox. (Or, to say it in other words, the top-edge of the sidebar should behave like position:sticky while the bottom-edge should behave like position:fixed;bottom:0).
Can you think of a way of achieving this without using JavaScript?
Please let me know if I am understanding your situation. First I would suggest getting rid off of the *pre-toolbar bar. Otherwise, the desired behavior is impossible without js. And since you mentioned the information there is not essential, you can put it anywhere.
However, if you still want it to be on top, then sticky of position fixed the toolbar and the sidebar. Do not use calc() It is better to use height 100vh and put it behind the toolbar so it seems to be shorter. Then, place a pre-toolbar on top (z-index) of your toolbar and animated it to disappear after some seconds.
Here is a codepen https://codepen.io/oscontrerasn/pen/WNpxJwV
For a webpage grid-layout I decided to use Flexbox. Now I wanted to implement some "auto-functionality", so that grid-boxes can later be inserted without the need to add classes or styles in the HTML. One of this features is to make a box allways be 75% as tall as it is wide - even if the box is resized by, for example, browserwindow resize. Off course, if the boxes content extends the 75%-height, it should (and only then should) increase its height to fit the content. I searched for hours to find a suitable solution, but I finally got it working. So I thought at least, until I added content to the box.
The auto aspect-ratio works fine, as long as the box is empty. If I add content, the 75% of the width is allways added to the height it has through extension by its content. I made a jsfiddle to clearly visualize the problem:
JSFiddle wd5s9vq0, visualizing the following Code:
HTML-Code:
<div class="container">
<div class="content-cell"></div>
<div class="content-cell"></div>
</div>
<div class="container">
<div class="content-cell">
This cell has an inreased height because of
it's content. The empty space below the
content is the 75% of the cells width.
</div>
<div class="content-cell"></div>
</div>
CSS:
.container {
display: flex;
width: 400px;
}
.content-cell {
flex: 1 1 0;
margin: 10px;
background-color: #ccc;
}
.content-cell::after {
content: "";
display: block;
padding-top: 75%;
}
If I didn't knew it better, it looks like a floating-problem - but I think the ::before / ::after selector should add the block-element before the element it is used on and not inside it.
Does anyone has an idea on how to fix this problem?
This seems to be a very widespread problem on the internet, and most solutions you find are either about wrapping the content, absolute-positioning the content or a mixture of both. This has numerous and case-dependent downsides. After hours of playing around with the code, I finally found a combination of CSS proporties that work without the need to add any DOM or make the content absolute-positioned. This looks quit basic, and I am wondering why it took me so long and why you can't find it out there on the web.
The HTML:
<div class="mybox aspect-full">
This is text, that would normally extend the box downwards.
It is long, but not so long that it extends the intended aspect-ratio.
</div>
The CSS:
.mybox {
width: 200px;
}
.aspect-full::before {
content: '';
display: block;
padding-top: 100%;
float: left;
}
The only downside I could find is that the content of your cell must float. If you use clear on one of your child objects, it is positioned below the expander-block and you are back to the original problem. If you need to clear the floating of divs inside of these aspect-ratio-cells, you might consider to wrap them and keep the wrapper floatable.
Alright, I understand that the purpose of a DIV is to contain its inner elements - I didn't want to upset anyone by saying otherwise. However, please consider the following scenario:
My web page (which only takes up a width of 70% of the entire page) is surrounded by a container (a div). However, under my navigation bar which is at the top of the page, I would like to create w banner that takes up 100% of the width of the entire page (which means it will have to extend outside the bounds of its container as the container is only taking up 70% of the page's width).
This is the basic idea that I am trying to accomplish: http://www.petersonassociates.biz/
Does anyone have any suggestions for how I could accomplish this? I'd appreciate any help.
Evan
If you just want the background of the element to extend across the whole page this can also be achieved with negative margins.
In a nutshell (correction from comment):
.bleed {
padding-left: 3000px;
margin-left: -3000px;
padding-right: 3000px;
margin-right: -3000px;
}
That gives you horizontal scroll bars which you remove with:
body {overflow-x: hidden; }
There is a guide at http://www.sitepoint.com/css-extend-full-width-bars/.
It might be more semantic to do this with psuedo elements: http://css-tricks.com/full-browser-width-bars/
EDIT (2019):
There is a new trick to get a full bleed using this CSS utility:
width: 100vw;
margin-left: 50%;
transform: translateX(-50%);
I guess all solutions are kind of outdated.
The easiest way to escape the bounds of an element is by adding:
margin-left: calc(~"-50vw + 50%");
margin-right: calc(~"-50vw + 50%");
discussion can be found here and here. There is also a nice solution for the upcoming grid-layouts.
If I understood correctly,
style="width: 100%; position:absolute;"
should achieve what you're going for.
There are a couple of ways you could do this.
Absolute Positioning
Like others have suggested, if you give the element that you want to stretch across the page CSS properties of 100% width and absolute position, it will span the entire width of the page.
However, it will also be situated at the top of the page, probably obscuring your other content, which won't make room for your now 100% content. Absolute positioning removes the element from the document flow, so it will act as though your newly positioned content doesn't exist. Unless you're prepared to calculate exactly where your new element should be and make room for it, this is probably not the best way.
Images: you can also use a collection of images to get at what you want, but good luck updating it or making changes to the height of any part of your page, etc. Again, not great for maintainability.
Nested DIVs
This is how I would suggest you do it. Before we worry about any of the 100% width stuff, I'll first show you how to set up the 70% centered look.
<div class="header">
<div class="center">
// Header content
</div>
</div>
<div class="mainContent">
<div class="center">
// Main content
</div>
</div>
<div class="footer">
<div class="center">
// Footer content
</div>
</div>
With CSS like this:
.center {
width: 70%;
margin: 0 auto;
}
Now you have what appears to be a container around your centered content, when in reality each row of content moving down the page is made up of a containing div, with a semantic and descriptive class (like header, mainContent, etc.), with a "center" class inside of it.
With that set up, making the header appear to "break out of the container div" is as easy as:
.header {
background-color: navy;
}
And the color reaches to the edges of the page. If for some reason you want the content itself to stretch across the page, you could do:
.header .center {
width: auto;
}
And that style would override the .center style, and make the header's content extend to the edges of the page.
Good luck!
The more semantically correct way of doing this is to put your header outside of your main container, avoiding the position:absolute.
Example:
<html>
<head>
<title>A title</title>
<style type="text/css">
.main-content {
width: 70%;
margin: 0 auto;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<header><!-- Some header stuff --></header>
<section class="main-content"><!-- Content you already have that takes up 70% --></section>
<body>
</html>
The other method (keeping it in <section class="main-content">) is as you said, incorrect, as a div (or section) is supposed to contain elements, not have them extend out of bounds of their parent div/section. You'll also face problems in IE (I believe anything 7 or below, this might just be IE6 or less though) if your child div extends outside the parent div.
How do you overlap an element over another element that is positioned relatively in Internet Explorer? Z-index doesn't work, it always appears behind the relatively positioned element.
Looks like I'm kidding, but I am not
.myLinkCssClass {
background : url(#);
}
You're not by any chance trying to put something over a combobox (select tag), iframe or flash movie right?
In those cases z-index is a lost cause.
Otherwise what browser version are you using and are you using absolute positioning?
I had a real pain with this problem that this particular workaround wasn't relevant for. It's a little hard to explain so I'll try using code:
<div id="first" style="z-index: 2">In between</div>
<div id="second" style="z-index: 1">In the back
<div id="third" style="z-index: 3">Foreground</div></div>
The problem is that setting the parent's z-index to a higher value would move it to the foreground instead of the back where its supposed to be. I stumbled upon a solution completely by accident: I made a copy of the foreground element (id=third) outside its parent.
<div id="first" style="z-index: 2">In between</div>
<div id="third" style="z-index: 3; visibility:hidden">Foreground</div>
<div id="second" style="z-index: 1">In the back
<div id="third" style="z-index: 3">Foreground</div></div>
Its worth mentioning that in my original code the elements don't have IDs so I don't suffer from 2 elements sharing the same one and invalidating my HTML.
I think its safe to classify this weirdness as another bug that happens to help with the original, but it works, at least for me. Hope somebody finds this useful!
Create and then set an additional transparent background image on the element you want to have on top. For me it finally worked in IE8. SASS:
#galerie-link {
position: absolute;
z-index: 1000;
top: 25px;
left: 40px;
a {
display: block;
width: 185px;
height: 90px;
background-image: url(../images/transparent.png);
}
}
I wanted to note that if you are using IE8 and below, it does not support CSS3 filters. This was my issue.
I was using:
filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.gradient(startColorstr='#black00', endColorstr='#black00', GradientType=0);
No matter what I set my position or z-index to, you could not see the other layer because it was causing a complete mask over that layer (instead of going from clear to black and to clear again).
By removing the CSS3 filter for just IE8, I was able to solve my problem.
Hope this helps someone who runs into the same issue.
I had the same problem in an html where many repeated relative positioned divs were blocking absolute positioned div's view. The workaround provided by www.brenelz.com, that I've already used with success wasn't working in this case. So, the following worked for me:
I removed the relative positioning from those divs I've mentioned first, then added a CSS to turn those divs on relative when hover. Let me show you the code:
Before:
DivThatYouMustHover {
height: 300px;
position: relative;
width: 200px;
}
After:
DivThatYouMustHover {
height: 300px;
width: 200px;
}
DivThatYouMustHover:hover {
position:relative;
}
This way the others 'sisters' of that div stay with normal positioning and don't interfere with the layout.
It worked very well for me! I hope it helps you too.
This question already has answers here:
How can I reorder my divs using only CSS?
(27 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
Given that the HTML
<div>
<div id="content1"> content 1</div>
<div id="content2"> content 2</div>
<div id="content3"> content 3</div>
</div>
render as
content 1
content 2
content 3
My question:
Is there a way to render it as below by using CSS only without changing the HTML part.
content 1
content 3
content 2
This can be done in browsers that support the CSS3 flexbox concept, particularly the property flexbox-order.
See here
However, support for this is only in current versions of most browsers still.
Edit Time moves on and the flexbox support improves..
This works for me:
http://tanalin.com/en/articles/css-block-order/
Example from this page:
HTML
<div id="example">
<div id="block-1">First</div>
<div id="block-2">Second</div>
<div id="block-3">Third</div>
</div>
CSS
#example {display: table; width: 100%; }
#block-1 {display: table-footer-group; } /* Will be displayed at the bottom of the pseudo-table */
#block-2 {display: table-row-group; } /* Will be displayed in the middle */
#block-3 {display: table-header-group; } /* Will be displayed at the top */
As stated there, this should work in most browsers. Check link for more info.
It might not exactly match what you're after, but take a look at this question:
CSS positioning div above another div when not in that order in the HTML
Basically, you'd have to use Javascript for it to be reliable in any way.
This is one of the classic use-cases for absolute positioning--to change rendering from source order. You need to know the dimensions of the divs to be able to do this reliably however, and if you don't javascript is your only recourse.
I was messing around in Firefox 3 with Firebug, and came up with the following:
<div>
<div id="content_1" style="height: 40px; width: 40px; background-color: rgb(255, 0, 0); margin-bottom: 40px;">1</div>
<div id="content_2" style="width: 40px; height: 40px; background-color: rgb(0, 255, 0); float: left;">2</div>
<div id="content_3" style="width: 40px; height: 40px; background-color: rgb(0, 0, 255); margin-top: -40px;">3</div>
</div>
It's not perfect, since you need to know the heights of each container, and apply that height value to the negative top margin of the last element, and the bottom margin of the first element.
Hope it helps, nd
I got it to work by doing this:
#content2 { position:relative;top:15px; }
#content3 { position:relative; top:-17px; }
but keep in mind that this will not work for you as soon as you have dynamic content. The reason I posted this example is that without knowing more specific things about your content I cannot give a better answer. However this approach ought to point you in the right direction as to using relative positioning.
One word answer: nope. Look into XSLT (XML Stylesheet Language Transforms), which is a language specifically geared towards manipulating XML.
If you know the height of each element then it is a simple case of vertical relative positioning to swap around the orders. If you don't know the heights then you either have to give them heights and allow the divs to get scroll bars if there is any overflow or calculate it all with JavaScript and add the relative positioning on-the-fly.
with jquery you can simply do:
$('#content2').insertAfter($('#content3'));
I don't think there's a way to do it with CSS, except to force fixed positioning of each of the divs and stack them that way.