can you help me to fix this layout: http://imgur.com/a/kTMao
I'd like the grid will fill totally (hoizontally and vertically) its parent div without show me the outermost scrolbar(the window scollbar)
The only scrollbar that i'd like to see are the those of the grid
the page has a kendoSplitter in the middle
this is my markup
<body>
<img src="images/logo.png" />
<h1>Archivio documentale</h1>
<div id="horizontal" style="height: 100%; width: 100%">
<div id="left-pane">
<div class="pane-content" style="width:390px;">
<!-- LEFT SIDE CONTENT initial fixed width -->
</div>
</div>
<div id="main-pane">
<div class="pane-content">
<div id="mainGrid"></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
You could use Viewports. There is vh (View Height) and vw (View Width). vh takes the height of the window dinamically, and vw takes the width of the window also dinamically.
Therefore, by applying the following:
div{
height: 100vh;
width: 100vw;
}
Your grid would always fit 100% no matter what.
Example: http://codepen.io/diego-fortes/pen/oYKpqK
I hope it helps :)
I have some divs in my layout having 50% width. Each div may have a variable height depending on its content. What I would like to do is "floating" them to the top. This means that each div fills gaps with above divs. Something like that:
Is it possible to achieve this effect with some CSS? Of course, width can also be set to other values, not only 50%. Thanks in advance.
You can change the html markup as follows
<div class="left col50">
<div class="first"></div>
<div class="third"></div>
</div>
<div class="right col50">
<div class="second"></div>
<div class="fourth"></div>
</div>
and the css
.col50{
width:50%;
}
.right,.left{
float:left;
}
Hello I'm trying to create a navigation bar which is made up of several div containers in one big navigation div.
I'm not sure if my approach is right but I tried to do it like this:
<div id="navigation">
<div class="innen">
<div class="logo">
<img class= "logo" src="logo.png" title="Logo"/>
</div>
<div id="bar">
<!-- Navigation Items are in here --!>
</div>
<div id="gamecard">
<!-- Another right floated Element !-->
</div>
</div>
<div class="unten">
<p>You are here: Main</p>
</div>
</div>
I wanted to push down the bar div to meet the height of the image by using top padding:
#bar{
padding-top: 80px;
}
But now it moves the down gamecard container too. How can I prevent this from happening?
I also added a jfiddle:
http://jsfiddle.net/Cv4p2/
try using position:absolute
<div id="bar" style="position:absolute; padding: 80px 0 0 0">
</div>
Padding is intended to add a cushion inside the container in which you implement it. It appears that you would benefit from using margin. You should replace "padding-top: 80px;" with "margin-top: 80px;" and you would achieve the desired effect.
I want to create alternating 100% colored blocks. An "ideal" situation is illustrated as an attachment, as well as the current situation.
Desired setup:
Currently:
My first idea was to create an div class, give it a background color, and give it 100% width.
.block {
width: 100%;
background: #fff;
}
However, you can see that this obviously doesn't work. It's confined to a container area. I tried to close the container and that didn't work either.
The container class is intentionally not 100% width. It is different fixed widths depending on the width of the viewport.
If you want to work with the full width of the screen, use .container-fluid:
Bootstrap 3:
<body>
<div class="container-fluid">
<div class="row">
<div class="col-lg-6"></div>
<div class="col-lg-6"></div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-lg-8"></div>
<div class="col-lg-4"></div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col-lg-12"></div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
Bootstrap 2:
<body>
<div class="row">
<div class="span6"></div>
<div class="span6"></div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="span8"></div>
<div class="span4"></div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="span12"></div>
</div>
</body>
QUICK ANSWER
Use multiple NOT NESTED .containers
Wrap those .containers you want to have a full-width background in a div
Add a CSS background to the wrapping div
Fiddles: Simple: https://jsfiddle.net/vLhc35k4/ , Container borders: https://jsfiddle.net/vLhc35k4/1/
HTML:
<div class="container">
<h2>Section 1</h2>
</div>
<div class="specialBackground">
<div class="container">
<h2>Section 2</h2>
</div>
</div>
CSS: .specialBackground{ background-color: gold; /*replace with own background settings*/ }
FURTHER INFO
DON'T USE NESTED CONTAINERS
Many people will (wrongly) suggest, that you should use nested containers. Well, you should NOT.
They are not ment to be nested. (See to "Containers" section in the docs)
HOW IT WORKS
div is a block element, which by default spans to the full width of a document body - there is the full-width feature. It also has a height of it's content (if you don't specify otherwise).
The bootstrap containers are not required to be direct children of a body, they are just containers with some padding and possibly some screen-width-variable fixed widths.
If a basic grid .container has some fixed width it is also auto-centered horizontally.
So there is no difference whether you put it as a:
Direct child of a body
Direct child of a basic div that is a direct child of a body.
By "basic" div I mean div that does not have a CSS altering his border, padding, dimensions, position or content size. Really just a HTML element with display: block; CSS and possibly background.
But of course setting vertical-like CSS (height, padding-top, ...) should not break the bootstrap grid :-)
Bootstrap itself is using the same approach
...All over it's own website and in it's "JUMBOTRON" example:
http://getbootstrap.com/examples/jumbotron/
This is how you can achieve your desired setup with Bootstrap 3:
<div class="container-fluid">
<div class="row"> <!-- Give this div your desired background color -->
<div class="container">
<div class="row">
<div class="col-md-12">
... your content here ...
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
The container-fluid part makes sure that you can change the background over the full width. The container part makes sure that your content is still wrapped in a fixed width.
This approach works, but personally I don't like all the nesting. However, I haven't found a better solution so far.
There is a workaround using vw. Is useful when you can't create a new fluid container.
This, inside a classic 'container' div will be full size.
.row-full{
width: 100vw;
position: relative;
margin-left: -50vw;
left: 50%;
}
After this there is the sidebar problem (thanks to #Typhlosaurus), solved with this js function, calling it on document load and resize:
function full_row_resize(){
var body_width = $('body').width();
$('.row-full').css('width', (body_width));
$('.row-full').css('margin-left', ('-'+(body_width/2)+'px'));
return false;
}
In bootstrap 4, you can use 'w-100' class (w as width, and 100 as 100%)
You can find documentation here:
https://getbootstrap.com/docs/4.0/utilities/sizing/
If you can't change the HTML layout:
.full-width {
width: 100vw;
margin-left: -50vw;
left: 50%;
}
<div class="container">
<div class="row">
<div class="col-xs-12">a</div>
<div class="col-xs-12">b</div>
<div class="col-xs-12 full-width">c</div>
<div class="col-xs-12">d</div>
</div>
</div>
Demo: http://www.bootply.com/tVkNyWJxA6
Sometimes it's not possible to close the content container.
The solution we are using is a bit different but prevent a overflow because of the
firefox scrollbar size!
.full-width {
margin-top: 15px;
margin-bottom: 15px;
position: relative;
width: calc(100vw - 10px);
margin-left: calc(-50vw + 5px);
left: 50%;
}
Here is a example: https://jsfiddle.net/RubbelDeKatz/wvt9253q
Instead of
style="width:100%"
try using
class="col-xs-12"
it will save you 1 character :)
Sorry, should have asked for your css as well. As is, basically what you need to look at is giving your container div the style .container { width: 100%; } in your css and then the enclosed divs will inherit this as long as you don't give them their own width. You were also missing a few closing tags, and the </center> closes a <center> without it ever being open, at least in this section of code. I wasn't sure if you wanted the image in the same div that contains your content or separate, so I created two examples. I changed the width of the img to 100px simply because jsfiddle offers a small viewing area. Let me know if it's not what you're looking for.
content and image separate: http://jsfiddle.net/QvqKS/2/
content and image in same div (img floated left): http://jsfiddle.net/QvqKS/3/
I would use two separate 'container' div as below:
<div class="container">
/* normal*/
</div>
<div class="container-fluid">
/*full width container*/
</div>
Bare in mind that container-fluid does not follow your breakpoints and it is a full width container.
I'd wonder why someone would try to "override" the container width, since its purpose is to keep its content with some padding, but I had a similar situation (that's why I wanted to share my solution, even though there're answers).
In my situation, I wanted to have all content (of all pages) rendered inside a container, so this was the piece of code from my _Layout.cshtml:
<div id="body">
#RenderSection("featured", required: false)
<section class="content-wrapper main-content clear-fix">
<div class="container">
#RenderBody()
</div>
</section>
</div>
In my Home Index page, I had a background header image I'd like to fill the whole screen width, so the solution was to make the Index.cshtml like this:
#section featured {
<!-- This content will be rendered outside the "container div" -->
<div class="intro-header">
<div class="container">SOME CONTENT WITH A NICE BACKGROUND</div>
</div>
}
<!-- The content below will be rendered INSIDE the "container div" -->
<div class="content-section-b">
<div class="container">
<div class="row">
MORE CONTENT
</div>
</div>
</div>
I think this is better than trying to make workarounds, since sections are made with the purpose of allowing (or forcing) views to dynamically replace some content in the layout.
Though people have mentioned that you will need to use .container-fluid in this case but you will also have to remove the padding from bootstrap.
The following answer is not exactly optimal by any measure, but I needed something that maintains its position within the container whilst it stretches the inner div fully.
https://jsfiddle.net/fah5axm5/
$(function() {
$(window).on('load resize', ppaFullWidth);
function ppaFullWidth() {
var $elements = $('[data-ppa-full-width="true"]');
$.each( $elements, function( key, item ) {
var $el = $(this);
var $container = $el.closest('.container');
var margin = parseInt($container.css('margin-left'), 10);
var padding = parseInt($container.css('padding-left'), 10)
var offset = margin + padding;
$el.css({
position: "relative",
left: -offset,
"box-sizing": "border-box",
width: $(window).width(),
"padding-left": offset + "px",
"padding-right": offset + "px"
});
});
}
});
This must work (Mobile phone as well as Desktop screen):
class: alignfull and class: img-fluid will do the magic.
<div class="alignfull">
<img class="img-fluid" style="background-size: cover;
background-position: center ;
background-repeat: no-repeat;
height: auto;
min-width: 100%;
width: -moz-available; "
src="{{ $image->image }}" alt="An image">
</div>
Say I have this html code:
<html>
<body>
<div id="Div1" style="position:relative">
<span style="position:absolute;top:100px">My text</span>
</div>
<div id="Div2">
Test
</div>
</body>
</html>
What should I do to make Div2 always below Div1 regardless of the content of Div1? Because the span uses position:absolute in Div1, the content of Div2 appears above the content of Div1.
The reason div2 displays above div1 is because div2 is absolutely positioned. That means that div1 doesn't participate in the normal document flow, as if it was pulled out of the document. So, div2 shows up at the top, then your absolute positioning pushes div1 down to 100px.
Take the absolute positioning off of div1, then use margins or padding to move it down to the desired location. That way, the normal html rendering will place div2 below div1.
If you're forced to absolutely position div1, then you need to absolutely position div2 as well. You may need to use javascript to figure out the height of div1 and set the top of div2 appropriately.
<html>
<body>
<div id="Div1" style="position:absolute; top: 100px;">
<span>My text</span>
</div>
<div id="Div2" style="position:absolute; top: 130px;">
Test
</div>
</body>
</html>
Why not do this ?
<div id="Div1" style="margin-top:100px">
<span>My text</span>
</div>
<div id="Div2">
Test
</div>
I don't quite get why you are doing it that way. Could you explain a bit more what you're trying to do? I'm sure there's a better way
Others have answered this question correctly about position:relative vs. position:absolute and page flow in the container div.
Just to add to the answer. I found the following tutorial really helpful when I was learning about positioning in CSS.
Learn CSS Positioning in Ten Steps
Jeff: div is as standard block elements, so that wont make any difference.
You could try:
<div id="Div1" style="position:relative; display:inline-block">
<span style="position:absolute;top:100px">My text</span>
</div>
<div id="Div2">
Test
</div>
do you want div2 below div1 or at the very bottom of the page? if you want it below div1 then add
clear:both;
to div2.
if you want it fixed to the bottom of the page then use a fixed position property on the div2
Maybe something like this?
<html>
<body>
<div id="Div1" style="position:relative">
<div style="position:absolute;top:0">just some text<br />very long text<br />very long text<br />very long text<div id="Div2" style="margin-top:30px">div thats always below(30px's below)</div></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>
use display:block; on those divs