i have a div on a web page that basically acts as a panel container. i want it to:
have a minimum width of 1000px; So no matter how small the content inside the div is, it will at least keep the panel to 1000px in width:
in terms of max width, it should keep going as big as the content within it. So if a person has a 24 inch monitor and they want to maximize the browser it should keep growing until the content inside doesn't have any scroll bars and then stop.
needs to work in all browsers.
how would i do this in css?
Assuming this item is a block element (i.e. "display: block"), it should scale automatically as wide as its containing element (in this case the browser window).
In CSS, just specify "min-width: 1000px." This will work in IE8+ and all modern browsers.
try this
#panel {
min-width: 1000px;
diplay: block;
overflow: hidden; }
Try this:
#panel
{
/* Other styles */
min-width:1000px;
/*width:100%; - removed as it will create horizontal scrollbar if margin and padding aren't 0 as per Josh's comment.*/
}
However, you will problems with older browsers like IE6 which do not like the min-width thingy in which case you will need to use JavaScript.
Related
Isolated test case (view in IE 7 or IE 8/9 in IE 7 mode)
Viewing this page in IE 7 is causing my width value to be ignored. If you remove the padding value, the width is properly applied, but when you add in the padding, it causes the entire page to grow, and it treats the padding almost as margin. The larger the width of the page, the larger the blank area to the right of the element. I've been unable to find which bug this is, and, more importantly, how to fix it. Has anyone seen this and does anyone know a solution?
Things I've tried so far:
zoom fix
display: inline-block (recommended for double vertical padding issue)
It isn't line-height (it's a width issue...)
Screenshot of the issue:
This div should span the entire width of the page, and no more, but you'll notice the scrollbar here:
And the result of scrolling to the right:
This should not be there.
Examining the element in the browser tools shows the width to be incorrectly the full width of the page, instead of the full width minus the padding.
Disclaimer: I'll ignore the functional requirement and your comments on the other answers and just concentrate on the concrete problem.
This IE7 specific problem is caused by using an offset (e.g. top, right, bottom or left) on a relatively positioned element. If you offsets a relatively positioned element, then it will basically still retain the whole space of its original position. Note that this doesn't happen when offsetting absolutely positioned element.
Before the left offset is been applied, the relatively positioned element is due to its width and and the right padding completely out of the viewport and hence a horizontal scollbar will be generated. After the left offset is applied on the relatively positioned element, you're basically leaving a space of the same size as the offset on the other side of the offset, still outside the viewport.
A bit sane webbrowser will during redrawing however discover that there's nothing visible outside the viewport and hence hide the scrollbar again. IE7, however, isn't that smart enough and retains the scrollbar.
After all, using left offset was technically been the wrong solution. You should in first place have used margin-left instead of left. Unlike the offset, the margin doesn't leave an empty space on the original position, but really pushes the whole element to the desired position.
So, here's how your script is been fixed:
$('#el').css({
'width': document.body.scrollWidth - 200,
'padding-right': 200,
'margin-left': (-1 * (document.body.scrollWidth - 322) / 2) - 1
});
By the way, I wonder how that float: left; makes sense in this construct wherein you apparently want to simulate a 100% width. It'll probably be for other purposes not visible in the concrete example.
You can solve this without using javascript for calculating width, and no padding, instead use position: absolute. Here's an updated fiddle. It will work in any browser
#el {
background-color: #FFFF00;
min-height: 45px;
width: 100%;
position: absolute;
left:0;
right: 0;
top: 0;
}
http://jsfiddle.net/LRpHq/7/
I was having this problem with a skeleton.css implementation. Specifically, my #header was taking the width of body, which took the width of html. The remaining content had a set-width of 978px. So when the window was smaller than 978, the background of the header would only render to the width of the viewport. i.e. - if you started the render at 500 wide, that's all the wider #header would get. Dragging a wider width of the viewport had no problems, but right scroll cut the header to the size of initial viewport.
My fix: html,body { min-width:978px } /* your width may vary */
Since you seem to be fine with using Javascript, adjust your resize() function:
function resize () {
$('#el').css({'width':$(window).width(),'position':'absolute','left':'0px'});
}
Fixed the original post as it was off by miles.
edit:
Tested in a sandboxed IE7 and it works. (what can i say, i go out of my way to get something perfect, also am new around here so that bounty would really help to be very honest) to also note that it works natively in IE7, IE8 and IE9, FF3.6, Opera 10 and should work in Safari with no problem, Chrome didn't get mentioned as it's my default browser and it works, no doubt about it.
Here is the JS:
function resize () {
$('#el').trigger('resize').width('100%');
}
resize();
and the CSS:
#container {
width: 320px;
border: 1px solid #000000;
min-height: 500px;
margin: 0px auto;
}
#el {
background-color: #FFFF00;
min-height: 45px;
width: 100%;
position: absolute;
left: 0;
}
i found solution for similar problem here. see if it can helps you too.
I'm struggling with a client project. All of my divs have no absolute positioning, height:100% for html, body, and container divs, and yet the static-content stops short of its contents (at 910px).
I can change the overflow property to auto, and the background will continue down to the end of the content, but it adds a scroll bar, and the bottom border of the static-content div stays in the same place (at 910px).
UPDATE: Development link was no longer valid, so I removed it. Suffice to say that Animuson's thorough explanation is the valuable part of this thread, and solved the problem of containers not expanding to match their content. – Ty
You used the wrong overflow-y property for clearing, and you should set a min-height instead of a regular height. Try this:
#static-content {
background-color: #FFFFFF;
margin: 0 auto;
min-height: 100%; /* Set to minimum height so overflow doesn't get hidden */
overflow-y: hidden; /* HIDE overflow; I know, it doesn't make much sense */
position: relative;
width: 960px;
}
Floating Content by Itself
Given this green box which has a padding of 20px (for visibility), notice how a single red box floated to the left will expand past the boundary of its parent box. This is because floating content doesn't actually take up any "space" in the visual area. All other elements will expand underneath it, and only text will wrap around it.
Clearing Floated Content in the Parent
In order to counter this and make the green box completely encompass the area of its child red box, we can add overflow: hidden to its styles. This will expand the box down far enough.
Expanding the Parent to 100% Height
You might think that just adding height: 100% is the simplest way to make it expand to where it needs to be.However, the height property specifies an absolute height. Since the content which is floated does not actually take up any vertical space, our overflow: hidden property will cut off all the content that goes past the parent's height.
Using a Minimum Height Instead
Since we want it to expand to at least a 100% height, we can use the min-height property to force it there and still maintain the "automatic" height needed to make the parent green box fully encompass the child red box, letting it push past the 100% only when it needs too.
How You Were Set Up
All elements, by default, are set to overflow: visible so that property didn't really change anything. The only difference you had between this and the first example I provided was that you had a height: 100% set on the element. So the parent was expanding to 100% height but still not encompassing the full height of its child red box.
If you have to use overflow:visible for some reason, there's other way to force container to stretch to contain all floated content. You have to put element with clear:both as a last container's elements. If you ignore ancient IEs (<8) you can do it with very simple css (vide https://css-tricks.com/snippets/css/clear-fix/):
.your-container:after {
content: "";
display: table;
clear: both;
}
If height: 100% doesn't work well for you, you can try this calc function from CSS3:
/* Firefox */
height: -moz-calc(100%);
/* WebKit */
height: -webkit-calc(100%);
/* Standard */
height: calc(100%);
You can try this either with height, or with min-height, as already said. You can with this calc functions also other calculations like:
height: -moz-calc(100% - 50px);
And this is sometimes very useful, as you might guess.
height:100% is the height of the content that flows with your container at hand and is not taking into account your floated content, so that is why the height of your container is stopping short. Remove it and clear your container properly to clear your floated elements within and it will work:
#static-content:before, #static-content:aftr {
display:table;
content:"";
}
#static-content:after {
clear:both;
}
#static-content {
zoom:1; /*ie fix*/
}
You have a float in static-maincontent, which removes it from the regular flow of the content of the document, and hence static-content doesn't care about its height any more, and so won't expand to cover it.
Additionally, remove height:100% for static-content.
READ FOR ANSWER!!!-- Okay so I had the same problem, All that was needed was to remove the "Positioning" Style. Should work perfectly fine.
When using a css background such as in the footer on the page below (in the elements div.footer_head and div.footer_footer), if the browser window is resized to less than about 1000px the divs themselves remain at the full width but scrolling right in the browser causes whitespace to appear where the background should be.
I was sure I'd find a similar question on here but can't seem to word it correctly enough to find it in search.
If someone could point me in the right direction I'm sure I can figure this out.
Look at how the divs with class footer_head and footer_footer behave when you resize the browser to be quite thin and scroll to the right.
screenshot http://printanomics.unbranded-nomads.co.uk/picture-2.jpg
You need to add a min-width:1000px to .footer-container.
.footer-container {
float: left;
line-height: 1.5;
margin-top: 20px;
width: 100%;
min-width: 1000px; /* add this */
}
This will mean the smallest width the .footer-container will get is 1000px. Though after that it will expand to 100%.
If you have a look at your css file you will see that the footer width is set to 100% and not 1000px as the other divs. This also applies to your background as your background won't be bigger than the div itself.
I don't know if you use this, but Firebug is a very good Firefox plugin to identify troubles in CSS files.
On a customer website, I have to add a background image for only a contained region of the page (its real content part).
The problem is, if the content is short enough, then the image will be clipped. How would be possible to have the image completely visible? I have tried to add the "overflow" CSS attribute but unfortunately it did not help me.
Here is an example of the website I have to work on: http://www.sfp-pensioen.nl/werknemer/welkom The background image is on the div element with id="content".
On the specific link that I am sending it is not an issue because the content is long enough, but if you remove elements using firebug then the problem will become obvious.
ps: IE6 must be supported.
Following on from Graham's answer:
"height" in ie6 acts like "min-height" across other browsers.
min-height: 50px;
_height: 50px;
The example above will provide a cross browser minimum height of 50px. ie6 will read "_height" where other browsers will not. If you don't hacks, use a conditional statement.
Rich
you could either give a height to the id #content
or
apply the background:url("/images/Doelgroep-Background-Image.jpg") no-repeat scroll left top transparent; to #mainContent instead of #content
overflow for background-images is impossible, but you could set a min-height for content (or set the image in another div with lower z-index and position it abolutely to appear at the place you want - but thats a very bad solution)
The overflow attribute controls what happens to the div when the content is too big to fit - if you have a fixed-size div with some content that might overflow, you generally want the auto option. overflow has no effect on a background image.
For your case, it sounds like you want to specify a min-height on the content div. Note that this isn't supported by older browsers like IE6, which you may or may not care about. There are plenty of ways to work around this, though.
What you want is the 100% height you can achieve this with the following.
html {
height: 100%;
}
body {
height: 100%;
}
#content {
height: 100%;
}
You need the min-height and the body needs a height so every child element of the body will follow the rule.
Also by adding min-height: 100%; to all css rules will solve all your problems for any grade A browser.
If you know the #sidebar or #main will always have a visual height the same or larger than the background image then you can simply add the background image to:
.sub #wrapper #mainContent {
background:url("/images/Doelgroep-Background-Image.jpg") no-repeat scroll 0 150px transparent;
}
instead of where it is an the moment on #content
Here's a question that's been haunting me for a year now. The root question is how do I set the size of an element relative to its parent so that it is inset by N pixels from every edge? Setting the width would be nice, but you don't know the width of the parent, and you want the elements to resize with the window. (You don't want to use percents because you need a specific number of pixels.)
Edit
I also need to prevent the content (or lack of content) from stretching or shrinking both elements. First answer I got was to use padding on the parent, which would work great. I want the parent to be exactly 25% wide, and exactly the same height as the browser client area, without the child being able to push it and get a scroll bar.
/Edit
I tried solving this problem using {top:Npx;left:Npx;bottom:Npx;right:Npx;} but it only works in certain browsers.
I could potentially write some javascript with jquery to fix all elements with every page resize, but I'm not real happy with that solution. (What if I want the top offset by 10px but the bottom only 5px? It gets complicated.)
What I'd like to know is either how to solve this in a cross-browser way, or some list of browsers which allow the easy CSS solution. Maybe someone out there has a trick that makes this easy.
The The CSS Box model might provide insight for you, but my guess is that you're not going to achieve pixel-perfect layout with CSS alone.
If I understand correctly, you want the parent to be 25% wide and exactly the height of the browser display area. Then you want the child to be 25% - 2n pixels wide and 100%-2n pixels in height with n pixels surrounding the child. No current CSS specification includes support these types of calculations (although IE5, IE6, and IE7 have non-standard support for CSS expressions and IE8 is dropping support for CSS expressions in IE8-standards mode).
You can force the parent to 100% of the browser area and 25% wide, but you cannot stretch the child's height to pixel perfection with this...
<style type="text/css">
html { height: 100%; }
body { font: normal 11px verdana; height: 100%; }
#one { background-color:gray; float:left; height:100%; padding:5px; width:25%; }
#two { height: 100%; background-color:pink;}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div id="one">
<div id="two">
<p>content ... content ... content</p>
</div>
</div>
...but a horizontal scrollbar will appear. Also, if the content is squeezed, the parent background will not extend past 100%. This is perhaps the padding example you presented in the question itself.
You can achieve the illusion that you're seeking through images and additional divs, but CSS alone, I don't believe, can achieve pixel perfection with that height requirement in place.
If you are only concerned with horizontal spacing, then you can make all child block elements within a parent block element "inset" by a certain amount by giving the parent element padding. You can make a single child block element within a parent block element "inset" by giving the element margins. If you use the latter approach, you may need to set a border or slight padding on the parent element to prevent margin collapsing.
If you are concerned with vertical spacing as well, then you need to use positioning. The parent element needs to be positioned; if you don't want to move it anywhere, then use position: relative and don't bother setting top or left; it will remain where it is. Then you use absolute positioning on the child element, and set top, right, bottom and left relative to the edges of the parent element.
For example:
#outer {
width: 10em;
height: 10em;
background: red;
position: relative;
}
#inner {
background: white;
position: absolute;
top: 1em;
left: 1em;
right: 1em;
bottom: 1em;
}
If you want to avoid content from expanding the width of an element, then you should use the overflow property, for example, overflow: auto.
Simply apply some padding to the parent element, and no width on the child element. Assuming they're both display:block, that should work fine.
Or go the other way around: set the margin of the child-element.
Floatutorial is a great resource for stuff like this.
Try this:
.parent {padding:Npx; display:block;}
.child {width:100%; display:block;}
It should have an Npx space on all sides, stretching to fill the parent element.
EDIT:
Of course, on the parent, you could also use
{padding-top:Mpx; padding-bottom:Npx; padding-right:Xpx; padding-left:Ypx;}