This question already has answers here:
Make container shrink-to-fit child elements as they wrap
(4 answers)
CSS when inline-block elements line-break, parent wrapper does not fit new width
(2 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I want to visualize source-code-like structures in HTML using some sort of "block" analogy. But for whatever reason I walk into some strange sizing issues with my flexboxes. The following snippet displays a visualisation of a program that would "normally" be printed like this:
while(true) {
goForward();
goForward();
goForward();
goForward();
goForward();
}
The outer box for the while is displayed as inline-flex to consume as little horizontal space as possible. But as you can see in the screenshot (or you may run the snippet yourself) there is quite a lot space wasted:
What I expect would look like this:
If you however click the goForward() blocks (which marks them with display: none), the width of the parenting block suddenly shrinks. From what I can tell it shrinks about as much as the width of the now hidden block.
The "linebreaks" between goForward() blocks are implemented using height: 0 but width: 100% elements. I also tried to do the breaks without empty elements and break-after: always, but this leads to the exact some behavior of the outer flexbox. I have observed this behavior in the most recent versions of Firefox and Chrome.
Why does the width of the outermost inline-flex element change (seemingly) with the number of items it displays vertically? And how could I "properly" implement this kind of layout where I basically want to have a block layout with arbitrary "linebreaks"?
// Hide blocks on click to demonstrate width changes
Array.from(document.querySelectorAll(".forward")).forEach(
elem => elem.addEventListener('click', () => elem.classList.add("hide"))
);
.code-block {
border: 2px solid blue;
border-radius: 5px;
padding: 5px;
display: inline-flex;
flex-flow: row wrap;
align-items: baseline;
}
.line-break {
width: 100%;
}
.forward {
cursor: pointer;
}
.hide {
display: none;
}
<div class="code-block">
<div class="terminal">while(</div>
<div class="code-block">true</div>
<div class="terminal">)</div>
<div class="line-break"></div>
<div class="code-block forward">
<div class="terminal">goForward()</div>
</div>
<div class="line-break"></div>
<div class="code-block forward">
<div class="terminal">goForward()</div>
</div>
<div class="line-break"></div>
<div class="code-block forward">
<div class="terminal">goForward()</div>
</div>
<div class="line-break"></div>
<div class="code-block forward">
<div class="terminal">goForward()</div>
</div>
<div class="line-break"></div>
<div class="code-block forward">
<div class="terminal">goForward()</div>
</div>
</div>
Instead of flex-flow: row wrap;, try flex-direction: column;. This gets each item to go vertically. Then wrap everything you want to be in a single "line" in its own inside of .code-block, to keep the contents of each line together. So,
<div class="code-block">
<div class="line-break">
<div class="terminal">while(</div>
<div class="code-block">true</div>
<div class="terminal">)</div>
</div>
...and so on for the others.
(You shouldn't need align-items: baseline; either.)
Related
This question already has an answer here:
Understanding how width of scrollbar is computed in nested flex container
(1 answer)
Closed last year.
I have an issue with text clipping where flex items are clipped too early even though their flex-basis is set to 0 so I would expect the flex container to stretch all items to be at least as big as the biggest item in the container. Anyway here's a fiddle:
https://jsfiddle.net/nxbwufLk/
How is it choosing to wrap the text? Why is it not stretching the first item.
.button {
flex: 1 1 0;
border: 1px solid red;
}
.container {
display: inline-flex;
}
<div class="container">
<div class="button">
Some text
</div>
<div class="button">
Some text that is very long indeed
</div>
</div>
I can see that the second text is wrapped but how is that decided? There are no widths set anywhere
I can see that the second text is wrapped but how is that decided? There are no widths set anywhere
There is a width set it's just not trivial to notice, You're using inline-flex which on it's own should tell you what's going on.
The width of the container will equal it's content, in this case the width of the text of both elements.
Demo
.button {
border: 1px solid red;
}
.container {
display: inline-flex;
}
.test>.button {
flex: 1 1 0;
}
No flex properties set
<br/>
<div class="container">
<div class="button">
Some text
</div>
<div class="button">
Some text that is very long indeed
</div>
</div>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/> flex properties set
<br/>
<div class="container test">
<div class="button">
Some text
</div>
<div class="button">
Some text that is very long indeed
</div>
</div>
As you can see the width of the containers is the same.
Now regardless of what we do, the width of the container is set and won't change, so when you apply flex: 1 1 0; you're simply dividing that width (evenly flex-basis:0;) between the two elements and then you get the wrapping.
I have used both of the display properties whenever I wanted the width of an element to be the same as its content.
But is one better than the other? I'm referring to accessibility, browser compatibility, responsiveness, etc.
Note: I am asking because I'm planing to use only one of these in my new web site. I just don't know which one is better, if any.
Ultimately, it depends on the use case:
display: inline-block will create an inline-block element
display: table will create a table element
Here they are in use:
span.mySpan {
background-color: red;
}
<div>
<span>A span element.</span>
<span class="mySpan" style="display: table;">a <code>display: table</code> element.</span>
<span>Another span element.</span>
</div>
<br/>
<br/>
<div>
<span>A span element.</span>
<span class="mySpan" style="display: inline-block;">a <code>display: inline-block</code> element.</span>
<span>Another span element.</span>
</div>
As can be seen, the results are very different. The table element positions itself on a new line, and causes the next element to be on a new line as well. The inline-block element positions itself inline with it's sibling elements.
In many cases, the above differences will be enough to choose one or the other.
If not, let's continue...
There are some cases when display: table is useful:
Horizontal and vertical centering of elements
Equal height elements
However, browsers can produce inconsistent results when not implemented correctly so you should always couple display: table with the standard table markup (using rows and cells):
.table {
display: table;
}
.table-row {
display: table-row:
}
.table-cell {
display: table-cell;
background-color: #eaeaea;
padding: 10px;
}
<div class="table">
<div class="table-row">
<div class="table-cell">
Content
</div>
<div class="table-cell" style="height: 100px;">
Content
</div>
<div class="table-cell">
Content
</div>
</div>
</div>
This becomes pretty tedious. And with modern CSS we can accomplish the same using display: flex, with a simpler HTML structure and less CSS:
.flex {
display: flex;
}
.flex-cell {
background-color: #eaeaea;
padding: 10px;
}
<div class="flex">
<div class="flex-cell">
Content
</div>
<div class="flex-cell" style="height: 100px;">
Content
</div>
<div class="flex-cell">
Content
</div>
</div>
Honestly, I can't think of many times I would need to decide between display: inline-block and display: table as they produce such different results. However, if I were on the fence I'd follow this decision tree:
Do I need to make a table? Use a true <table></table> element
Do I need equal height/width elements, and/or vertical centering? Use a display: flex element
Otherwise, use the appropriate HTML element (display: inline-block)
I'll start off by stating that I know this question has been asked a lot, but none of the answers I saw seemed to work for me.
Basically, I have some divs inside of a larger div. They'll have dynamic text, so I don't know how many lines each will be. The problem is that I can't seem to get the divs to size themselves to the parent's height. I want the column divs to take up the entire height of the row div (basically, I want that blue part to fill all the space between the bars).
HTML:
<div class="container">
<div class="row divOne">
<div class="col-xs-3 divTwo">Some Text</div>
<div class="col-xs-3">
Some text that could wrap to multiple lines
</div>
</div>
<div class="row divOne">
<div class="col-xs-3 divTwo">Different Text</div>
<div class="col-xs-3 divThree">
With some more text
</div>
</div>
</div>
CSS:
.divOne
{
border-top:10px solid black;
}
.divTwo
{
background-color: #32649b;
height:100%;
color:white;
}
jsfiddle:
Now, what I've learned from other versions of this question are that
float:left might be screwing it up
height:100% doesn't work if the parent's height is defined
position:relative might help on the parent
The problem with the float is that I'm using bootstrap, and that's where the float is coming from, so I don't really want to mess with that.
I can't really define parent height, because it'll be dynamic based on the children.
I also tried messing around with position:relative on the parent and absolute on the child, but that seemed to get really screwy. I'm also guessing this won't work because I'm using bootstrap. It's possible that I'm just missing something, though. I'll admit to not being the greatest with CSS.
I don't know if I'm having these issues because I'm using bootstrap, or because I'm just being an idiot right now.
Something else that seems to be throwing a wrench into things: These columns will be laid out differently on smaller screens vs. larger ones. I actually want something along the lines of col-xs-12 col-md-3 for these.
The short answer is that you can't really achieve this within the constraints of the bootstrap framework. There are plenty of articles that explain why div elements can't stretch to the height of their container, and how to get around this problem. One of the solutions I'm most fond of is Faux Columns.
But, let's get a little more creative then that.
I came up with something that might work for your scenario, but requires a bit of change to your markup. Here's a solution that wraps the bootstrap grid with display: table.
http://jsfiddle.net/Wexcode/13Lfqmjo/
HTML:
<div class="table-container">
<div class="table-row divOne">
<div class="col-xs-3 divTwo">Some Text</div>
<div class="col-xs-3">
Some text that could wrap to multiple lines
</div>
<div class="col-xs-6"></div>
</div>
</div>
CSS:
.table-container {
margin: 0 -15px;
}
.table-row {
display: table;
width: 100%;
}
.table-row [class^="col"] {
display: table-cell;
padding: 0 15px;
float: none;
}
Note that for this solution to work, you must include enough col elements to stretch it all 12 columns (see that I added an empty .col-xs-6 div).
You can add
display:flex;
to divOne , and will act like you wanted.
in bootstrap 4 'row' class applies this on div, but in ealier versions you need to add manually if you expect such behavior.
Give .divOne a display: flex and remove the height: 100% from .divTwo:
.divOne
{
border-top:10px solid black;
display: flex;
}
.divTwo
{
background-color: #32649b;
/*height:100%;*/
color:white;
}
<link href="https://maxcdn.bootstrapcdn.com/bootstrap/3.2.0/css/bootstrap.min.css" rel="stylesheet"/>
<div class="container">
<div class="row divOne">
<div class="col-xs-3 divTwo">Some Text</div>
<div class="col-xs-3">
Some text that could wrap to multiple lines
</div>
</div>
<div class="row divOne">
<div class="col-xs-3 divTwo">Different Text</div>
<div class="col-xs-3 divThree">
With some more text
</div>
</div>
</div>
I am trying to create a 4 column <div> layout.
Why are the row containers not drawing a border around the respective row?
Also, is this a good approach, as in is my css written well to be fluid and for dynamic resizing of the browser window?
Any suggestions or help would be most appreciated.
Here is my current attempt.
You need to set the overflow to auto when using float. http://jsfiddle.net/gJJHs/
The problem seems to be that you are floating your columns, and when you float things, they take up effectively zero space.
I think the solution is to cancel the float in you "last" class and add a "dummy column" to each row.
This CSS seems to work:
.col
{
float: left;
width: 25%;
}
.last{
clear: left;
}
.row{
border: 1px solid green;
}
Revised HTML (with dummy last column):
<div class="row">
<div class="col">1</div>
<div class="col">2</div>
<div class="col">3</div>
<div class="col">4</div>
<div class="last" />
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col">5</div>
<div class="col">6</div>
<div class="col">7</div>
<div class="col">8</div>
<div class="last" />
</div>
When an element is floated, its parent no longer contains it because the float is removed from the flow. The floated element is out of the natural flow, so all block elements will render as if the floated element is not even there, so a parent container will not fully expand to hold the floated child element.
As such, the border will seem like it is not bordering anything :( Take a look at the following article to get a better idea of how the CSS Float property works:
The Mystery Of The CSS Float Property
As others have said, if you add overflow: auto; to your .row class, it'll take care of the problem. Here's another article that explains why to use overflow.
http://www.quirksmode.org/css/clearing.html
I hope this helps.
Hristo
it's the float left. That takes the divs "out of flow" and it's drawing the border around empty space essentially
Yet another option, in addition to the other answers, is to add overflow: hidden; to your .row.
The reason for the behavior you saw is that float takes the div outside of the normal flow. The div then essentially takes up no space in the document.
This makes sense if you think about the ostensible purpose of floating an image in order to wrap text around it. The next p tag (for example) is positioned as if the floated image wasn't there, i.e. overlapping the image. Then, the browser wraps the text within the 'p' tag around the image. (If the floated image was not "removed from the flow", the p tag would naturally appear below the image—not giving the desired effect.)
Here's how I'd write the code.
HTML:
<div class="row">
<div class="col">1</div>
<div class="col">2</div>
<div class="col">3</div>
<div class="col">4</div>
</div>
<div class="row">
<div class="col">5</div>
<div class="col">6</div>
<div class="col">7</div>
<div class="last">8</div>
</div>
CSS:
.col
{
float: left;
width: 25%;
}
.row{
border: 1px solid green;
overflow: hidden; /* "overflow: auto;" works just as well instead */
width:100%; /* Helps older versions of IE */
}
Add a "float:none;clear:both" to your .row and you'll see the rows appropriately. But for the fluid behavior and design that you are looking for, you'll want to apply some javascript (like jQuery Equal Height: http://www.jainaewen.com/files/javascript/jquery/equal-height-columns/) to be consistent across browsers without a ton of CSS hacking.
If I try to apply min-width, max-width to a floating div so that it expands to max-width when the right content is hidden does not work.
But, if I use table and 2 tds in it, the left td will expand to 100% if the right td is hidden.
Can I achieve this table effect with floated divs?
I don't think you can do what you are asking, but you can make it look like what you are asking.
Make it into two tds and put a max-width on a div inside the td. Would that work?
This isn't going to work with floats. Luckily we now have more tools at our disposal.
Here are two very simple methods to expand a div to 100% of the available width if a sibling horizontally to it is hidden or removed.
#1 – Using display: flex
Compatibility: Edge and all modern browsers. IE 10 and 11 support the non-standard -ms-flexbox.
The Basic Markup
<div class="container">
<div>
First Column
</div>
<div>
This second column can be hidden or not exist and the first column will take up its space
</div>
</div>
The CSS
The container div is given display: flex.
The containers children are give flex: 1 and they will be assigned equal width, can grow and can shrink.
.container {
width: 500px;
display: flex;
}
.container>div {
flex: 1;
background: #FF6961;
height: 200px;
margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.container>div:nth-child(even) {
background: #006961;
}
<div class="container">
<div>
Content
</div>
<div>
Content
</div>
</div>
<div class="container">
<div>
Content takes up the whole width when other divs are hidden.
</div>
<div style="display: none">
Content
</div>
</div>
<div class="container">
<div>
Content takes up the whole width when there is no other div.
</div>
</div>
Read this guide to flexbox
Read more about flexbox on the MDN
#2 – Using display: table
Compatibility: IE8+ and all modern browsers
The Basic Markup
<div class="container">
<div>
First Column
</div>
<div>
This second column can be hidden or not exist and the first column will take up its space
</div>
</div>
The CSS
The container is given display: table
The containers children are given display: table-cell and will act the same as cells in an HTML table. If a cell is hidden or is removed the other cell will take its space.
.container{
display: table;
width: 600px;
margin: 20px;
}
.container>div {
display: table-cell;
height: 200px;
background: #FF6961;
}
.container>div:nth-child(even) {
background: #006961;
}
<div class="container">
<div>
Content
</div>
<div>
Content
</div>
</div>
<div class="container">
<div>
Content takes up the whole width when other divs are hidden.
</div>
<div style="display: none">
Content
</div>
</div>
<div class="container">
<div>
Content takes up the whole width when there is no other div.
</div>
</div>
<div class="container">
<div>
Content takes up the remaining width if a cell has a fixed width.
</div>
<div style="width: 200px">
Content
</div>
</div>
Read more about CSS tables on the MDN