when inspecting elecment, I noticed the following empty span
<span class="x-tree-node-indent"></span>
in order to not having it occupy any space, I set the following style
span.x-tree-node-indent
{
left:0px;
width:0px;
height:0px;
margin:0px;
padding:0px;
}
In Chrome, I got what I wanted even without the addional styles. But in IE, I still can see a block of space over there. Any reasons? and how to fix that?
I've experienced what you're describing in IE6, 7 & 8.
You have to set the line-height to zero as well. This usually works for inline elements.
Have you tried display:none?
span.x-tree-node-indent {
display: none;
}
That should work the same everywhere but I can't check IE right now, display:none:
This value causes an element to not appear in the formatting structure (i.e., in visual media the element generates no boxes and has no effect on layout). Descendant elements do not generate any boxes either; the element and its content are removed from the formatting structure entirely. This behavior cannot be overridden by setting the 'display' property on the descendants.
Please note that a display of 'none' does not create an invisible box; it creates no box at all. [...]
Emphasis mine.
Here's a quick example if you want to check for yourself: http://jsfiddle.net/ambiguous/ZrzWz/
As noted, display: none will cause the item to take itself entirely out of the the layout. visibility: hidden will not; that is, if you had a 20px by 20px block, that block of space would continue to occupy the space even if it is hidden.
You can also set the display to block, border to none and whitespace
A few other items would be helpful to know - in order for anyone to answer this question with more than the display: none (which will work if all you are wanting to do is have it taken out of the space).
What version of IE are you referencing? In no way are the all the same.
What is the purpose of the span, if in fact you do not want it to be visible?
What doctype is your HTML? Depending, for IE there could be quirks mode involved, you may have the option of using an IE specific meta tag, telling it to render in IE7 mode etc.
For number two, if you are simply wanting to have have an indent as the name implies, then you can use the CSS text-indent: 10px (or whatever). If you have other reasons for it, there are options such as setting margins, padding on the containing area. In other words, semantically, why is this span there when there is no visibility and so on? Which then leads to have you tried other elements etc.
I can't reproduce it here. Here is my code:
span.x-tree-node-indent
{
left: 0px;
width: 0px;
height: 0px;
margin: 0px;
padding: 0px;
}
<BODY>
<P>left<SPAN class="x-tree-node-indent"></SPAN>right</P>
</BODY>
I see the one word "leftright" without any space inbetween in my IE9.
Depending upon what kind of behavior you want to achieve you may use the attributes display:none and visibility:hidden.
Related
I am working on asp.net webforms. I am displaying a asp:RegularExpressionValidator in a <td> element which validates entry in a textbox. When the page loads, it is displayed as a <span> element with visibility:hidden. The problem is that in Firefox, it still occupies space, which doesn't happen in IE and Chrome. Because of this the html is not displayed properly in Firefox. Is there any solution for this?
"Visibility: hidden;" renders the element but keeps it invisible.
If you intend not to load the element, you should use
.someElement { display: none; }
This would not even reserve the space for the specified element.
Hope this helps..
You should try display:none instead of visibility:hidden.
display:none means that the tag in question will not appear on the page at all (although you can still interact with it through the dom). There will be no space allocated for it between the other tags.
I'd recommend a different approach... I know that code depends on asp.net... I presume the thing you don't want is to have a bigger spacing because of those validators, or you don't want the layout to be expanding on error highlight, considering that, I'd suggest:
Make all validator messages having position absolute (I hope you have a container for each field, that one needs to have position: relative)
As each validator have absolute position, won't take more vertical space (it's better to add the code via a css class, which should have something like:
.validatorMessage {
position: absolute;
left:0;
top: 2rem /* should be the height of the field */
}
The only issue is, when those messages fires up, will shorten the available space, but I think is a reasonable tradeoff.
Hope this can help
Hi so I am working on creating a wordpress template from an existing static website.
However I can't seem to get the CSS for the menu to work correctly.
I need a style that is applied to the menu to be applied to all of the li and not have to code each one individually.
The problem is I want to add a background-color to each item (making them look like buttons). If you look at the site again, it puts a huge box rather than putting a small background-color to each item. I hope that makes sense.
You can see the site here: http://lawrences.work/
First, remove your width:149px; on #menu-menu.
Second, on #menu-menu li, remove all margins, and try apply this code
# menu-menu li {
background-color: #FFC0CB;
display: inline;
padding: 10px 20px;
}
Alright, so I've checked it out and it appears to be that the div#logo is causing your menu to be vertically stretched.
I'm not entirely sure as to why since I didn't scan all the CSS or couldn't find anything related to it directly.
Either way I do have an explanation for what actually happened anyways.
So this div.menu-menu-container in your HTML is lexically positioned just below the div#logo - if you inspect element on them you should see highlighting overlap when hovering between the two.
An element that is float: left basically has no height. It is sort-of removed from the document flow unless the div below it has clear: both or the parent has overflow: hidden - both which have their own nasty side-effects.
Anyway, this div#logo caused your div.menu-menu-container to stretch vertically because the div#logo was floated and your div.menu-menu-container wasn't causing it to be quirky.
To fix this I added one property to div.menu-menu-container which should not harm your layout in any way except for keeping these floated elements out of your way.
the property clear: both allows you to clear a float so that the document flow after it turns back to normal. This shrunk your menu down to the size it's supposed to be in the position it's supposed to be in.
EDIT (18-11-2015)
I actually had a choice of using clear: both or float: left - both fix the issue since all floated elements do think about each other, just not about the non-floated elements as much.
clear: both however is the nicest solution in this case because it doesn't change the behaviour of that element specifically whereas floating it does.
Also, the snippet you're going to need for your code to work:
.menu-menu-container {
clear: both; // or float: left; for that matter
}
For more reading on MDN / css-tricks
float
clear
css-tricks on float
Hope this helps you understand your issue, if you need more information I'll see it in the comments!
Good luck
I'm trying to achieve a combination of three goals...
Determine if I should use <code><pre>...</pre></code> or <pre><code>...</code></pre>?
Make code not wrap, not create horizontal scrollbars and not overflow any parent element.
Ensure that when a visitor copies code that the white-space is maintained when they paste it in to any (competent) editor.
So far I've had the most luck with white-space: pre-wrap; however I do not want the text to wrap. If they're interested enough they'll copy-paste it for themselves. While I do not want it to wrap I also do not want it to make the element overflow outside of any parent element and I don't want the text to appear outside of it's direct parent element.
I'd be okay with a horizontal scrollbar for the code itself (pre or code element, whichever) though I'd generally prefer not to.
Just in case it's relevant I don't use any CSS frameworks or the likes, I only do a basic reset...
* {border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: none; padding: 0px; }
I test in Firefox, then Chrome, then (actual) Opera and then maybe IE if I have sanity to spare. Thoughts please?
On number 2 and 3: Hopefully I haven't misunderstood your question--I got what I understood your goal to be working easily by by adding a fixed width and overflow:hidden to the css class.
On 1: it's working with <pre (outer)><code (inner)> so... hey.
http://jsfiddle.net/A2zhH/2/
FYI, border: gray; isn't doing anything. You need to use the format border:1px gray solid;
Goal 1 is simple: code inside pre is valid, pre inside code is not. On the other hand, pre is what matters here. You can use code inside it as a matter of principle if the content is computer code.
Goal 2 is self-contradictory as such, unless you are referring to an idea of reducing font size so that everything fits. More realistically, with regard to the statement that it is okay to have a horizontal scroll bar for the code block, use just
pre { width: 100%; overflow: auto }
This causes a horizontal scroll bar to appear for the block, instead of overflowing the content.
Goal 3 is achieved when you use normal spaces. What is copied contains spaces, and what happens to them after paste depends on the software.
I got it working to an accuracy of about 99.8% of the time using the following...
XHTML
<pre><code>/* Code here. */</code></pre>
CSS
pre {white-space: pre; width: 75vmax;}
let's say I have a div with right-aligned text and a fixed with:
div{
width: 30px;
text-align: right;
}
is it ok if I increase the width of this div to 35px trough padding, to move the text away from the edge and avoid adding another element inside of it?
div{
padding-right: 5px;
}
I mean would any browsers behave weirdly about it?
The result would be exacly what you said: a div of total width 35px. It seems to me you understand what you are doing, but there is never a substitute for actually testing in all your target browsers.
While this small piece of CSS looks innocent, it can change the elements around them in a way you didn't expect.
No It'll be ok, in every major browser.
Internet Explorer in Quirks Mode would have a problem with it due to it's box model.
If this is a problem, I would use a nested div that uses margins instead.
Your other option could be including an IE specific CSS file.
This is an area that we are getting a lot more control over with css3. Have a look at
http://www.quirksmode.org/css/box.html.
I've been trying to develop a way to make rows of an ASP.NET GridView (or table in general) clickable, whilst still maintaining all the usual actions you'd associate with links - correct right-click context menu, middle-clickability to open in a new tab, etc.
My solution uses jQuery to find <a> tags within each row and expand that <a> tag to the size of the row, thus making it appear that the row is clickable. It all works fine in Firefox and Chrome, but IE gives priority to the the text in the table rather than the <a> tag, so you get a text selector cursor and can't click the link when you hover over the text. This simple example shows what i mean:
<style type="text/css">
.link {position: absolute; z-index: 100; top: 200px; border: 1px solid pink; width: 150px; height: 150px;}
.content {position: absolute; z-index: 0; top: 200px; border: 1px solid red; width: 150px; height: 150px;}
</style>
link here
<div class="content">
You can't click the link when you hover over this text in IE
</div>
This could be by design for accessibility, but if that was the case I'd expect other browsers to follow suit. Can anyone offer any suggestions as to how to avoid the issue?
Have you tried setting the padding of the a to fill the table row?
The tricky part with that is you'd have to do the math so that it didn't exceed the row. So something like:
$("a").css("padding-top", function() {
$(this).closest("tr").height - $(this).height;
});
and so forth, based on the position of the a to the table row.
My thinking is that maybe IE sees overlapping elements (as in positioned on top of one another) as a possible conflict and thus makes a decision to try to accommodate both ("well, the link is yay big, but the text outside of it really isn't a link, so let's treat it like normal text") etc, but that elements that overlap purely for style (which I think padding is considered) would not raise any alarms because, hey, it's just a visual thing!
Just thinking out loud, let me know if it works out.
Probably one of the issues where IE creates a new z-index stacking context where it shouldn't. Either you've got a positioned parent without a z-index (known IE bug), or maybe IE just does that for table cells anyway, since that introduces a new offsetParent.
The normal approach would be to put a link in every cell (containing only a nbsp if it's empty) and use ‘display: block’ to make the link fill the width of the cell.
why not just make the <a> display:block and add the other div inside of it?
Alternative approach: instead of making the link the size of the row, why not make the entire row clickable?
$('tr').click(function(){
$(this).find('a.link').click();
});
You may want to use the css cursor property to make the row appear clickable as well.
The text wont show-through if the element has a background-color or -image set.
try...
$("a", this).css("background-image", "url(/images/spacer.gif)");