As illustrated in this jsfiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/qrbhb/
If you take this markup:
<div>There should be no gap between us</div>
<br />
<div>There should be no gap between us</div>
and this css:
div {
background: #999;
}
br {
clear: both;
display: block;
overflow: hidden;
visibility: hidden;
width: 0;
height: 0;
}
All webkit based browsers will display a gap equal to the line height of the parent element, while firefox and IEs will not display a gap. I don't know who is following the spec here, but I can't for the life of me get this to display the same in all browsers and it's driving me crazy. Any ideas?
EDIT: Sorry folks, I was looking at a rather complicated layout and mistakenly thought some elements were floating that weren't. Floated elements behave as expected.
Odd. I can see some logic to what's going on. It seems to be using the line-height from the preceding element as the height. If you add this, for example, just before the <br /> as shown:
<div class="weird" /><br />
...and then set its line-height:
div.weird {
line-height: 0;
}
(jsFiddle here)
...then the <br /> loses its height.
So, I'd guess that the line-break "inherits" -- although that's rather the wrong word -- the height of the preceding bit of text. I'm not certain that's really what's going on, but it makes the most sense of the explanations I can think of.
Really, though, I'm with everyone else -- if you don't want a break between lines, don't use a line-break. If you're going to go a bit non-semantic for clearing stuff anyway, I'd just live with it and use a <div>; the practical elements of the web community will understand and forgive you :)
use display:none;
http://jsfiddle.net/qrbhb/13/
Related
This question already has answers here:
What methods of ‘clearfix’ can I use?
(29 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
Although elements like <div>s normally grow to fit their contents, using the float property can cause a startling problem for CSS newbies: If floated elements have non-floated parent elements, the parent will collapse.
For example:
<div>
<div style="float: left;">Div 1</div>
<div style="float: left;">Div 2</div>
</div>
The parent div in this example will not expand to contain its floated children - it will appear to have height: 0.
How do you solve this problem?
I would like to create an exhaustive list of solutions here. If you're aware of cross-browser compatibility issues, please point them out.
Solution 1
Float the parent.
<div style="float: left;">
<div style="float: left;">Div 1</div>
<div style="float: left;">Div 2</div>
</div>
Pros: Semantic code.
Cons: You may not always want the parent floated. Even if you do, do you float the parents' parent, and so on? Must you float every ancestor element?
Solution 2
Give the parent an explicit height.
<div style="height: 300px;">
<div style="float: left;">Div 1</div>
<div style="float: left;">Div 2</div>
</div>
Pros: Semantic code.
Cons: Not flexible - if the content changes or the browser is resized, the layout will break.
Solution 3
Append a "spacer" element inside the parent element, like this:
<div>
<div style="float: left;">Div 1</div>
<div style="float: left;">Div 2</div>
<div class="spacer" style="clear: both;"></div>
</div>
Pros: Straightforward to code.
Cons: Not semantic; the spacer div exists only as a layout hack.
Solution 4
Set parent to overflow: auto.
<div style="overflow: auto;">
<div style="float: left;">Div 1</div>
<div style="float: left;">Div 2</div>
</div>
Pros: Doesn't require extra div.
Cons: Seems like a hack - that's not the overflow property's stated purpose.
Comments? Other suggestions?
Solution 1:
The most reliable and unobtrusive method appears to be this:
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/SO_AMK/wXaEH/
HTML:
<div class="clearfix">
<div style="float: left;">Div 1</div>
<div style="float: left;">Div 2</div>
</div>
CSS:
.clearfix::after {
content: " ";
display: block;
height: 0;
clear: both;
}
With a little CSS targeting, you don't even need to add a class to the parent DIV.
This solution is backward compatible with IE8 so you don't need to worry about older browsers failing.
Solution 2:
An adaptation of solution 1 has been suggested and is as follows:
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/wXaEH/162/
HTML:
<div class="clearfix">
<div style="float: left;">Div 1</div>
<div style="float: left;">Div 2</div>
</div>
CSS:
.clearfix::after {
content: " ";
display: block;
height: 0;
clear: both;
*zoom: expression( this.runtimeStyle['zoom'] = '1', this.innerHTML += '<div class="ie7-clear"></div>' );
}
.ie7-clear {
display: block;
clear: both;
}
This solution appears to be backward compatible to IE5.5 but is untested.
Solution 3:
It's also possible to set display: inline-block; and width: 100%; to emulate a normal block element while not collapsing.
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/SO_AMK/ae5ey/
CSS:
.clearfix {
display: inline-block;
width: 100%;
}
This solution should be backward compatible with IE5.5 but has only been tested in IE6.
I usually use the overflow: auto trick; although that's not, strictly speaking, the intended use for overflow, it is kinda related - enough to make it easy to remember, certainly. The meaning of float: left itself has been extended for various uses more significantly than overflow is in this example, IMO.
Rather than putting overflow:auto on the parent, put overflow:hidden
The first CSS I write for any webpage is always:
div {
overflow:hidden;
}
Then I never have to worry about it.
The problem happens when a floated element is within a container box, that element does not automatically force the container’s height adjust to the floated element. When an element is floated, its parent no longer contains it because the float is removed from the flow. You can use 2 methods to fix it:
{ clear: both; }
clearfix
Once you understand what is happening, use the method below to “clearfix” it.
.clearfix:after {
content: ".";
display: block;
clear: both;
visibility: hidden;
line-height: 0;
height: 0;
}
.clearfix {
display: inline-block;
}
html[xmlns] .clearfix {
display: block;
}
* html .clearfix {
height: 1%;
}
Demonstration :)
There are several versions of the clearfix, with Nicolas Gallagher and Thierry Koblentz as key authors.
If you want support for older browsers, it's best to use this clearfix :
.clearfix:before, .clearfix:after {
content: "";
display: table;
}
.clearfix:after {
clear: both;
}
.clearfix {
*zoom: 1;
}
In SCSS, you should use the following technique :
%clearfix {
&:before, &:after {
content:" ";
display:table;
}
&:after {
clear:both;
}
& {
*zoom:1;
}
}
#clearfixedelement {
#extend %clearfix;
}
If you don't care about support for older browsers, there's a shorter version :
.clearfix:after {
content:"";
display:table;
clear:both;
}
Although the code isn't perfectly semantic, I think it's more straightforward to have what I call a "clearing div" at the bottom of every container with floats in it. In fact, I've included the following style rule in my reset block for every project:
.clear
{
clear: both;
}
If you're styling for IE6 (god help you), you might want to give this rule a 0px line-height and height as well.
The ideal solution would be to use inline-block for the columns instead of floating. I think the browser support is pretty good if you follow (a) apply inline-block only to elements that are normally inline (eg span); and (b) add -moz-inline-box for Firefox.
Check your page in FF2 as well because I had a ton of problems when nesting certain elements (surprisingly, this is the one case where IE performs much better than FF).
Strange no one has come up with a complete answer for this yet, ah well here it is.
Solution one: clear: both
Adding a block element with the style clear:both; onto it will clear the floats past that point and stop the parent of that element from collapsing. http://jsfiddle.net/TVD2X/1/
Pros: Allows you to clear an element and elements you add below will not be effected by the floated elements above and valid css.
Cons: Requires the another tag to clear the floats, bloating markup.
Note: To fall back to IE6 and for it to work on abstinent parents (i.e. the input element) you are not able to use :after.
Solution two: display: table
Adding display:table; to the parent to make it shrug off the floats and display with the correct height. http://jsfiddle.net/h9GAZ/1/
Pros: No extra markup and is a lot neater. Works in IE6+
Cons: Requires invalid css to make sure everything plays nice in IE6 and 7.
Note: The IE6 and 7 width auto is used to prevent the width being 100%+padding, which is not the case in newer browsers.
A note on the other "solutions"
These fixes work back to the lowest supported browser, over 1% usage globally (IE6), which means using :after does not cut it.
Overflow hidden does show the content but does not prevent the element from collapsing and so does not answer the question. Using an inline block can have buggy results, children having strange margins and so on, table is much better.
Setting the height does "prevent" the collapse but it is not a proper fix.
Invalid css
Invalid css never hurt anyone, in fact, it is now the norm. Using browser prefixes is just as invalid as using browser specific hacks and doesn't impact the end user what so ever.
In conclusion
I use both of the above solutions to make elements react correctly and play nicely with each other, I implore you to do the same.
I use 2 and 4 where applicable (i.e. when I know the content's height or if overflowing doesn't harm). Anywhere else, I go with solution 3. By the way, your first solution has no advantage over 3 (that I can spot) because it isn't any more semantic since it uses the same dummy element.
By the way, I wouldn't be concerned about the fourth solution being a hack. Hacks in CSS would only be harmful if their underlying behaviour is subject to reinterpretation or other change. This way, your hack wouldn't be guaranteed to work. However in this case, your hack relies on the exact behaviour that overflow: auto is meant to have. No harm in hitching a free ride.
My favourite method is using a clearfix class for parent element
.clearfix:after {
content: ".";
display: block;
height: 0;
clear: both;
visibility: hidden;
}
.clearfix {
display: inline-block;
}
* html .clearfix {
height: 1%;
}
.clearfix {
display: block;
}
One of the most well known solutions is a variation of your solution number 3 that uses a pseudo element instead of a non-semantic html element.
It goes something like this...
.cf:after {
content: " ";
display: block;
visibility: hidden;
height: 0;
clear: both;
}
You place that in your stylesheet, and all you need is to add the class 'cf' to the element containing the floats.
What I use is another variation which comes from Nicolas Gallagher.
It does the same thing, but it's shorter, looks neater, and maybe used to accomplish another thing that's pretty useful - preventing the child elements' margins from collapsing with it's parents' (but for that you do need something else - read more about it here http://nicolasgallagher.com/micro-clearfix-hack/ ).
.cf:after {
content: " ";
display: table;
clear: float;
}
add this in the parent div at the bottom
<div style="clear:both"></div>
The main problem you may find with changing overflow to auto or hidden is that everything can become scrollable with the middle mouse buttom and a user can mess up the entire site layout.
Another possible solution which I think is more semantically correct is to change the floated inner elements to be 'display: inline'. This example and what I was working on when I came across this page both use floated divs in much exactly the same way that a span would be used. Instead of using divs, switch to span, or if you are using another element which is by default 'display: block' instead of 'display: inline' then change it to be 'display: inline'. I believe this is the 100% semantically correct solution.
Solution 1, floating the parent, is essentially to change the entire document to be floated.
Solution 2, setting an explicit height, is like drawing a box and saying I want to put a picture here, i.e. use this if you are doing an img tag.
Solution 3, adding a spacer to clear float, is like adding an extra line below your content and will mess with surrounding elements too. If you use this approach you probably want to set the div to be height: 0px.
Solution 4, overflow: auto, is acknowledging that you don't know how to lay out the document and you are admitting that you don't know what to do.
I believe that best way is to set clear:both to the upcoming element.
Here's why:
1) :after selector is not supported in IE6/7 and buggy in FF3, however,
if you care only about IE8+ and FF3.5+ clearing with :after is probably best for you...
2) overflow is supposed to do something else so this hack isn't reliable enough.
Note to author: there is nothing hacky on clearing... Clearing means to skip the floating fields. CLEAR is with us since HTML3 (who knows, maybe even longer) http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/html3/deflists.html , maybe they should chose a bit different name like page: new, but thats just a detail...
In this image you see two versions of the same elements. The top one is what I am getting, the bottom is what I want to end up with. Of course the bottom of the image is lined up with the text in the label and the text in the textbox, but I need it lined up with the textbox's box. I'm somewhat newbie at CSS, and the things I've tried so far do not get me even off the plate.
The controls are coded as follows:
<asp:Label ID="TimeTextRequiredLabel" runat="server" Text="*"></asp:Label>
<asp:Label ID="TimeTextLabel" runat="server" Text="Time: "></asp:Label>
<asp:TextBox ID="TimeTextBox" runat="server" ReadOnly="false" Width="100"></asp:TextBox>
<asp:Image ID="TimePickerImageButton" runat="server" BorderWidth="0"
Width="34" Height="21" CssClass="TimePickerImage"
ImageUrl="~/UserControls/Images/ClockPicker.gif"
ToolTip="Pick a time." />
What should be in my CSS, in the class "TimePickerImage" to scootch it leftwise and down the few pixels necessary?
Edited to Add:
Ultimately went with #JuanMendes solution, and this class:
<style type="text/css">
.TimePickerImage {
position: relative;
top: .2em;
right: .3em;
}
</style>
This snugs it in right exactly where I needed it. Thanks! Next task is to get serious with learning CSS. Thus far I've been playing script-kiddie with it.
Edited Further to Add:
I've tried all the other variations proposed by both #MarcAudet and #JuanMendes and the above code works best. I guess I don't care so much about comforming to some theoretical "ideal" as making the thing result in what I need.
You need to add or adjust the vertical-align: bottom declaration in #TimePickerImageButton
From your screenshots, it appears that the image is aligned with the baseline of the text line, the default behavior for an inline image.
vertical-align will take care of the vertical positioning.
To move the element to the left, try adjusting margin-left. However, check the margin on the input field since it may have a margin, and also look for some white space between the input field and the image.
Demo
If you have the following HTML:
<div class="parent ex2">
<label for="the-time">Time:</label>
<input id="the-time" type="text">
<img src="http://placehold.it/30x25">
</div>
and apply the following CSS:
.ex2 img {
vertical-align: bottom;
}
You will see the positioning that you want.
Fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/audetwebdesign/2PkUF/
If you have tall lines...
If you apply a larger value for line-height: 4.0, aligning elements to the bottom of the line box may look goofy.
You can also try vertical-align: text-bottom which should work.
See Example 3 in the demo.
You can always cheat and position the image yourself fudging values until it lines up(if you can't find a nicer way) http://jsfiddle.net/vTCHW/
Tested in FF, IE 8/9 and Chrome
img {
position: relative;
top: .3em;
}
You mentioned that Marc's answer is almost good enough. I think that is a better solution. You can make all three line up correctly by removing padding/margin from the input. http://jsfiddle.net/vTCHW/1/ Note that many people use a CSS reset system that would have taken care of the margins/paddings for you
img {
vertical-align: bottom;
}
input {
padding: 0;
margin: 0;
}
I need to figure out how to to put label text next to checkbox button. I need the text in the middle of the checkbox button. I always got the checkbox a little above the text or little below it. Hard to get it exactly in the middle. When I fix in to the middle in one browser, in other browser it doesn't exactly in the middle. There is always a pixel or two that ruins it.
Here's the fiddle
http://jsfiddle.net/JhPHm/
<style>
.field input
{
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
vertical-align: top;
}
.field label
{
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
vertical-align: top;
font: normal 12px/14px arial;
}
</style>
<div style="padding: 30px;">
<div class="field">
<label for="x"><input type="checkbox" id="x" name="x" value="1" /> Text in the middle</label>
</div>
</div>
Please help me get the text in the middle in all browsers. Here a picture with the differences:
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/5410/checkbox.png
Instead of vertical-align:top, try vertical-align:middle. It may help a bit, but input elements are notorious for being uneven across browsers.
Aligning input elements is tough, and sometimes nearly impossible.
If the problem is that it's misbehaving in old browsers, consider that people browsing the web with these browsers will stumble upon misaligned checkboxes on more places than just yours. They are browsing the web while it's crumbling around them so to speak. They won't care because they either know they're using an old browser or they don't notice because all sites show these tiny glitches.
If you're going to have to add all sorts of tweaks and fixes for various browsers to get to an acceptable end result, also consider that all these tweaks add to the size of your CSS and to the complexity making it tougher to maintain in the future.
In the end for me, this stuff depends on the audience, the budget and obviously the amount of checkboxes. ;-)
The way I've hacked around this is to use relative positioning, like this:
input[type="radio"], input[type="checkbox"] {
cursor: pointer;
line-height: normal;
margin: 0px;
position: relative;
top: -3px;
}
For example, if you want to shift them up 3 pixels. Like you've pointed out above, you might get different results in different browsers.
In this situation, Firebug or Chrome Developer Tools is going to help you a lot. There may be some garbage you're inheriting from elsewhere. Like in the example above, I set the margin back to 0px because something higher up (and unavoidable) in the CSS structure was setting a margin of 4px on all input and screwing me.
Good luck!
I have a some images that I need to line up without any gaps. I can get them fine in jsFiddle, see http://jsfiddle.net/QZLSf/2/
But on the actual SharePoint site the images have a gap between them, kind of like http://jsfiddle.net/QZLSf/1/
I have checked with FireBug and the images, and links, have all the properties they should have, but I can't get rid of that gap.
What could I be missing?
EDIT: I know that the second link has footerlinks defined as a class, but I was just using that to illustrate the problem I'm having. That's not what my actual code is.
EDIT: EDIT: Ok guys there seems to be a misunderstanding as to what I am asking here. I know HOW to get the required result, just that it isn't working on the SharePoint site. I just need advice on what might be wrong as everything that should work isn't working.
Remove the whitespace/line breaks between images.
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/QZLSf/12/
Just posted this solution elsewhere and think it's the same thing.. is your Sharepoint implementation putting the <img> elements on separate lines in the HTML?
In your fiddle you have them all on one line.. if that's the difference then I'm afraid it's natural behaviour for inline elements (space between words).. there are hacks out there that involve HTML comments or removing the spacing or splitting the img tags, but if you can't have (or don't want) an HTML workaround - then something like this should work
CSS:
div {word-spacing: -4px; background: #eee; border: 1px solid #000; width: 600px;}
div p {word-spacing: 0;}
HTML
<div>
<img src="http://dummyimage.com/150x50/dad/fff" alt="my mini thing" />
<img src="http://dummyimage.com/150x50/000/fff" alt="my mini thing" />
<img src="http://dummyimage.com/150x50/dad/fff" alt="my mini thing" />
<img src="http://dummyimage.com/150x50/000/fff" alt="my mini thing" />
<p>the div containing these images and text has it's word-spacing set to -4px which removes the default whitespace</p>
<p>but then you want some text with normal spacing reset the word-spacing to 0 on the <p> elements, which is the default</p>
</div>
this is your code:
#footerlinks a, #footerlinks img{
but footerlinks is class not an id, so use this:
.footerlinks a, .footerlinks img{
ways to skin cats...
http://jsfiddle.net/eCSYt/45/
Update for bazmegakapa:
Sorry assumed the code was pretty easy to follow and I just presented it as an alternative way to approach it..
The gaps were caused by the white space in the HTML formatting - which is significant. By setting the font-size to 1px (actually 0 would be better if it is supported xbrowser) the white space is too small to render. In a real page you may also need to zero the line-height as well.
I used text-align to centre the text just to show an alternative method... and it has the advantage that you don't need to know the total width of the images
That's just the way it is. You have to set the margin-left to -4px
.footerlinks img {
margin-left: -4px;
}
.footerlinks img:first-child {
margin-left: 0px;
}
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/QZLSf/11/
EDIT: This solution is more correct. I fixed the margin on the first child.
In code we got from a "psd2html"-service, I see a lot of spans surrounding the contents of div-tags.
I know the difference between spans and divs, but I cant figure out why the code looks like this:
<div class="forgot-password">
<span>Forgot password?</span>
</div>
...
<div>
<span>Sign in</span>
</div>
Instead of just:
<div class="forgot-password">
Forgot password?
</div>
...
<div>
Sign in
</div>
I'm guessing its either some kind of cross-browser fix, or perhaps to "prepare" for the future if we want to put more stuff into the divs?
Edit:
Here is the CSS for the forgot-password part:
div.forgot-password
{
float: left;
width: 145px;
height: 22px;
margin-left: 3px;
}
div.forgot-password span
{
display: block;
float: left;
padding-top: 3px;
padding-left: 0px;
}
div.forgot-password span a
{
color: #C5C5C5;
text-decoration: none;
}
Although plain text can be "naked" in a div, some consider it good practice to wrap text content with an inline tag such as a span. This means you can separate out inline styles from block styling. With respect to your psd2html service, what you are seeing is an artefact of the conversion algorithm. Any algo is only going to have a finite set of rules. In this case I am guessing there is a rule like "wrap text in a span", and a rule like "wrap links in an a". In your example above, all your text content is a link, so you are seeing
<span><a..>text content</a></span>
From an HTML perspective, in this case the outer span is unnecessary. However it doesn't do any harm, and for styling purposes - unless you want to change the css - you need to keep them in.
To me it looks like overly complicated code. It would make sense if the code was:
<div class="forgot-password">
<span> some text </span> Forgot password?
</div>
So that you can discriminate text and links in CSS or jQuery.
Here we should look at the CSS to see what is done, but my first impression is that the span's could be removed since they add no semantic nor operational meaning.
To me, span has always been a way of quickly formatting text in a css compliant way. So I would suppose that they add spans to prepare for further formatting, but as no formatting is given, they don't apply any stylesheets, thus the span is "empty".
I'd say that these spans could as well be removed. They don't hurt in that case, but they don't have any use here.
It looks like these are buttons being marked up here, so it might be used for the Sliding Doors technique, so you can have two background images, so that if the content grows, you'll still have nice corners. It's probably just something they do on all things which look like buttons, but they might not use it to its full potential everywhere.