how take margin-left in input check box - html

Suppose to have:
<div class="home">
<input type="checkbox"/>....
</div>
I need to insert margin-left:3px to checkbox. My css code is:
.home+input[type=checkbox]{
margin-left:3px;
}
Anyone can help me^

.home input[type="checkbox"]{
margin-left:3px;
}
<div class="home">
<input type="checkbox"/>....
</div>
You don't need the plus really... unless you have a specific need, and you need quotes around checkbox..!

You almost had it, you just need to wrap checkbox inside quotes input[type="checkbox"]
input[type="checkbox"]
{
margin-left:10px;
}
<div class="home">
<input type="checkbox"/>
</div>

Both of the other answers work, but neither of them is accurate.
Although I tend to recommend putting quotes around attribute selectors [type="checkbox"], it will work perfectly fine without quotes [type=checkbox]. Quotes are only necessary if you're including special characters.
The reason your code wasn't working was that the + in your selector matches siblings.
.home+input[type=checkbox]{} would match an input element with the type of checkbox that is placed immediately after an element with a class of home.
<div class="home">....</div>
<input type="checkbox"/>....
Since your input element is nested inside .home, you won't use the sibling selector +
That's why this code will do the trick:
.home input[type=checkbox]{
margin-left:3px;
}
<div class="home">
<input type="checkbox"/>....
</div>

Related

Styling Only Radio Inputs Within a Two-Level Deep Div

I have a containing div that has three divs inside. I want to style only the two divs that contain the radio input. Without using class names, is it possible to select those two divs?
If not, how do I select just the radio inputs and style those? Here's my attempt, with non-working CSS:
.container > div > input[type="radio"] {
border:1px solid green;
}
<div class="container">
<div>
<input type="radio" id="22" name="SetFour">
<label for="22"><span>Selection One</span></label>
</div>
<div>Some Random Div</div>
<div>
<input type="radio" id="23" name="SetFour">
<label for="23"><span>Selection Two</span></label>
</div>
</div>
CodePen for reference
You can use nth-of-type. But do this only if you have no alternatives and are sure that this block will not change in the future.
.container > div:nth-of-type(1),
.container > div:nth-of-type(3) {
border:1px solid green;
}
The selector selects the radio buttons, but the radio inputs don’t support the border property.
In case you want to select the divs, not the inputs, use classes; although there is a :has() pseudo‐class in the specifications, no major browser currently supports it.
https://caniuse.com/css-has
https://www.w3.org/TR/selectors-4/#relational
you have to set them a class.
write the similar class and styling.
or their id.

css parent/sibling selector

I have something like this
<form class="Form">
<FormField>
<label class="FormLabel" ..>
<div class="FormInput">
<div class="InputField">
<input../>
</div>
</div>
</FormField>
</form>
I need to apply styles to FormLabel when input is focussed.
I understand that we cant get the parent selector(Is there a CSS parent selector?)
I want a work around to access the parent using css only (not use jquery)
I tried this using & in LESS
.Form {
.FormField {
.Input:focus & .FormLabel {
border:green
}
}
}
Still no luck :/ .. What am I missing? Thanks!
There is no way, currently, to select the parent of an item using CSS. It must be done with JavaScript/jQuery.
Since there is no way to get the parent item of the item that's in focus (in this case, the input), you cannot change it's style using pure CSS.

Exclude item from CSS

Is there any way to write a CSS selector for this snippet, but without it applying to the <label> compoenent? So that I can alter the text in the div, but the label is good where it is.
<div id="edit-cc" class="form-item form-type-item">
<label class="field" for="edit-cc">cc </label>
guy#example.com, frank#example.com, inne#example.com, jan#example.com, karel#example.com
</div>
the best way is to enclose all email address in one element (probably an unordered list is the most suitable tag for this purpose) but if you cannot modify the code just apply your rules to the div {} and then revert them on div label {}
May be you can override those properties which is inside your div like this:
div{
color:green;
font-weight:bold;
font-size:14px;
}
div label{
color:red;
font-weight:normal;
font-size:18px;
}
http://jsfiddle.net/3Kkvg/

How to make a whole 'div' clickable in html and css without JavaScript? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Make a div into a link
(30 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
I want to make it so that a whole div is clickable and links to another page when clicked without JavaScript and with valid code/markup.
If I have this which is what I want the result to do -
<a href="#">
<div>This is a link</div>
</a>
The W3C validator says that block elements shouldn't be placed inside an inline element. Is there a better way to do this?
It is possible to make a link fill the entire div which gives the appearance of making the div clickable.
CSS:
#my-div {
background-color: #f00;
width: 200px;
height: 200px;
}
a.fill-div {
display: block;
height: 100%;
width: 100%;
text-decoration: none;
}
HTML:
<div id="my-div">
</div>
<div onclick="location.href='#';" style="cursor: pointer;">
</div>
a whole div links to another page when clicked without javascript and
with valid code, is this possible?
Pedantic answer: No.
As you've already put on another comment, it's invalid to nest a div inside an a tag.
However, there's nothing preventing you from making your a tag behave very similarly to a div, with the exception that you cannot nest other block tags inside it. If it suits your markup, set display:block on your a tag and size / float it however you like.
If you renege on your question's premise that you need to avoid javascript, as others have pointed our you can use the onClick event handler. jQuery is a popular choice for making this easy and maintainable.
Update:
In HTML5, placing a <div> inside an <a> is valid.
See http://dev.w3.org/html5/markup/a.html#a-changes (thanks Damien)
Without JS, I am doing it like this:
My HTML:
<div class="container">
<div class="sometext">Some text here</div>
<div class="someothertext">Some other text here</div>
text of my link
</div>
My CSS:
.container{
position: relative;
}
.container.a{
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
text-indent: -9999px; //these two lines are to hide my actual link text.
overflow: hidden; //these two lines are to hide my actual link text.
}
My solution without JavaScript/images. Only CSS and HTML. It works in all browsers.
HTML:
<a class="add_to_cart" href="https://www.example.com" title="Add to Cart!">
buy now<br />free shipping<br />no further costs
</a>
CSS:
.add_to_cart:hover {
background-color:#FF9933;
text-decoration:none;
color:#FFFFFF;
}
.add_to_cart {
cursor:pointer;
background-color:#EC5500;
display:block;
text-align:center;
margin-top:8px;
width:90px;
height:31px;
border-radius:5px;
border-width:1px;
border-style:solid;
border-color:#E70000;
}
Nesting block level elements in anchors is not invalid anymore in HTML5. See http://html5doctor.com/block-level-links-in-html-5/ and http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/the-a-element.html.
I'm not saying you should use it, but in HTML5 it's fine to use <div></div>.
The accepted answer is otherwise the best one. Using JavaScript like others suggested is also bad because it would make the "link" inaccessible (to users without JavaScript, which includes search engines and others).
jQuery would allow you to do that.
Look up the click() function:
http://api.jquery.com/click/
Example:
$('#yourDIV').click(function() {
alert('You clicked the DIV.');
});
Well you could either add <a></a> tags and place the div inside it, adding an href if you want the div to act as a link. Or else just use Javascript and define an 'OnClick' function. But from the limited information provided, it's a bit hard to determine what the context of your problem is.
.clickable {
cursor:pointer;
}
Something like this?
<div onclick="alert('test');">
</div>
AFAIK you will need at least a little bit of JavaScript...
I would suggest to use jQuery.
You can include this library in one line. And then you can access your div with
$('div').click(function(){
// do stuff here
});
and respond to the click event.
we are using like this
<label for="1">
<div class="options">
<input type="radio" name="mem" id="1" value="1" checked="checked"/>option one
</div>
</label>
<label for="2">
<div class="options">
<input type="radio" name="mem" id="2" value="1" checked="checked"/>option two
</div></label>
using
<label for="1">
tag and catching is with
id=1
hope this helps.

How can I use the FOR attribute of a LABEL tag without the ID attribute on the INPUT tag

Is there a solution to the problem illustrated in the code below? Start by opening the code in a browser to get straight to the point and not have to look through all that code before knowing what you're looking for.
<html>
<head>
<title>Input ID creates problems</title>
<style type="text/css">
#prologue, #summary { margin: 5em; }
</style>
</head>
<body>
<h1>Input ID creates a bug</h1>
<p id="prologue">
In this example, I make a list of checkboxes representing things which could appear in a book. If you want some in your book, you check them:
</p>
<form>
<ul>
<li>
<input type="checkbox" id="prologue" />
<label for="prologue">prologue</label>
</li>
<li>
<input type="checkbox" id="chapter" />
<label for="chapter">chapter</label>
</li>
<li>
<input type="checkbox" id="summary" />
<label for="summary">summary</label>
</li>
<li>
<input type="checkbox" id="etc" />
<label for="etc">etc</label>
<label>
</li>
</ul>
</form>
<p id="summary">
For each checkbox, I want to assign an ID so that clicking a label checks the corresponding checkbox. The problems occur when other elements in the page already use those IDs. In this case, a CSS declaration was made to add margins to the two paragraphs which IDs are "prologue" and "summary", but because of the IDs given to the checkboxes, the checkboxes named "prologue" and "summary" are also affected by this declaration. The following links simply call a javascript function which writes out the element whose id is prologue and summary, respectively. In the first case (prologue), the script writes out [object HTMLParagraphElement], because the first element found with id "prologue" is a paragraph. But in the second case (summary), the script writes out [object HTMLInputElement] because the first element found with id "summary" is an input. In the case of another script, the consequences of this mix up could have been much more dramatic. Now try clicking on the label prologue in the list above. It does not check the checkbox as clicking on any other label. This is because it finds the paragraph whose ID is also "prologue" and tries to check that instead. By the way, if there were another checkbox whose id was "prologue", then clicking on the label would check the one which appears first in the code.
</p>
<p>
An easy fix for this would be to chose other IDs for the checkboxes, but this doesn't apply if these IDs are given dynamically, by a php script for example.
Another easy fix for this would be to write labels like this:
<pre>
<label><input type="checkbox" />prologue</label>
</pre>
and not need to give an ID to the checkboxes. But this only works if the label and checkbox are next to each other.
</p>
<p>
Well, that's the problem. I guess the ideal solution would be to link a label to a checkboxe using another mechanism (not using ID). I think the perfect way to do this would be to match a label to the input element whose NAME (not ID) is the same as the label's FOR attribute. What do you think?
</p>
</body>
</html>
it's been resolved here:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/8537641
just do it like this
<label><input type="checkbox">Some text</label>
The best, to my mind, what you can do, is to rename all the checkboxes, by adding some prefix to their ids, for example input
<ul>
<li>
<input type="checkbox" id="input_prologue" />
<label for="input_prologue">prologue</label>
</li>
<li>
<input type="checkbox" id="input_chapter" />
<label for="input_chapter">chapter</label>
</li>
<li>
<input type="checkbox" id="input_summary" />
<label for="input_summary">summary</label>
</li>
<li>
<input type="checkbox" id="input_etc" />
<label for="input_etc">etc</label>
</li>
</ul>
This way you will not have any conflicts with other ids on a page, and clicking the label will toggle the checkbox without any special javascript function.
EDIT: In retrospect, my solution is far from ideal. I recommend that you instead leverage "implicit label association" as shown in this answer: stackoverflow.com/a/8537641/884734
My proposed, less-than-ideal solution is below:
This problem can be easily solved with a little javascript. Just throw the following code in one of your page's js files to give <label> tags the following behavior:
When a label is clicked:
If there is an element on the page with an id matching the label's for attribute, revert to default functionality and focus that input.
If no match was found using id, look for a sibling of the label with a class matching the label's for attribute, and focus it.
This means that you can lay out your forms like this:
<form>
<label for="login-validation-form-email">Email Address:</label>
<input type="text" class="login-validation-form-email" />
</form>
Alas, the actual code:
$(function(){
$('body').on('click', 'label', function(e){
var labelFor = $( this ).attr('for');
if( !document.getElementById(labelFor) ){
e.preventDefault(); e.stopPropagation();
var input = $( this ).siblings('.'+labelFor);
if( input )
input[0].focus();
}
})
});
Note: This may cause issues when validating your site against the W3C spec, since the <label> for attribute is supposed to always have a corresponding element on the page with a matching ID.
Hope this helps!
Simply put, an ID is only supposed to be used once on a page, so no they wouldn't design a workaround for multiple ID's on a single page which aren't supposed to exist.
To answer the rest of the question: no, the ID attribute is the only thing a label's 'for' attribute will look at. You can always use a JavaScript onclick event to fetch the input by name and change it, though that seems overly complicated when you can just fix your ID issue, which would make a lot more sense.
Maybe easy straightforward solution would be using uniqueid() php or other programming language alternative function.
Unlike the accepted answer, I agree with the solution proposed by FantomX1, generate a random id for every checkbox and use this id for the label associated to the checkbox.
But I would generate the random id using a uuid (see Create GUID / UUID in JavaScript?)
i was struggling with this today and thought i could share my result, because it seems there're no others in googles top-ranks. So here's my first Stack-Post (the trick is to stretch the checkbox over the other elements but keeping them clickable by using z-index):
first: credits for the base accordion:
https://code-boxx.com/simple-responsive-accordion-pure-css/
.tab{
position: relative;
max-width: 600px;
z-index:1;
}
.tab input{
padding: 100%;
position: absolute;
width: 100%;
height: 100%;
opacity: 0;
z-index:2;
cursor: pointer;
}
.tab label{
display: block;
margin-top: 10px;
padding: 10px;
color: #fff;
font-weight: bold;
background: #2d5faf;
}
.tab label span{
position:relative;
z-index:3;
cursor:text;
}
.tab .tab-content{
position:relative;
background: #ccdef9;
overflow: hidden;
transition: max-height 0.3s;
max-height: 0;
z-index:3;
}
.tab .tab-content p{
padding: 10px;
}
.tab input:checked ~ .tab-content{
max-height: 100vh;
}
.tab label::after{
content: "\25b6";
position: absolute;
right: 10px;
top: 10px;
display: block;
transition: all 0.4s;
}
.tab input:checked ~ label::after{
transform: rotate(90deg);
}
<div>
<div class="tab">
<input type="checkbox">
<label><span>Tab 1</span></label>
<div class="tab-content"><p>Should the pace attack?</p></div>
</div>
<div class="tab">
<input type="checkbox">
<label><span>Tab 2</span></label>
<div class="tab-content"><p>Some other Text</p></div>
</div>
</div>
EDIT:
sorry for not answering the original question but i'm on work and i think the principle is clear, right?