Wrong height of youtube-iframe inside flexbox item [duplicate] - html

I want to have a square div inside a flexbox. So I use:
.outer {
display: flex;
width: 100%;
background: blue;
}
.inner {
width: 50%;
background: yellow;
padding-bottom: 50%;
}
<div class="outer">
<div class="inner">
<a>hehe</a>
</div>
</div>
This works fine in Chrome. But in Firefox, the parent squeezes to just one line.
How do I solve this in Firefox? I use version 44.
You can also view the code at https://jsbin.com/lakoxi/edit?html,css

2018 Update
The flexbox specification has been updated.
4.2. Flex Item Margins and Paddings
Percentage margins and paddings on flex items, like those on block
boxes, are resolved against the inline size of their containing block,
e.g. left/right/top/bottom percentages all resolve against their
containing block’s width in horizontal writing modes.
Original Answer - applies to FF and Edge versions released before 2018
From the flexbox specification:
Authors should avoid using percentages in paddings or margins on flex items entirely, as they will get different behavior in different browsers.
Here's some more:
4.2. Flex Item Margins and Paddings
Percentage margins and paddings on flex items can be resolved against either:
their own axis (left/right percentages resolve against width, top/bottom resolve against height), or,
the inline axis (left/right/top/bottom percentages all resolve against width)
A User Agent must choose one of these two behaviors.
Note: This variance sucks, but it accurately captures the current state of the world (no consensus among implementations, and no consensus within the CSSWG). It is the CSSWG’s intention that browsers will converge on one of the behaviors, at which time the spec will be amended.

In addition to Michael_B's answer, here is a possible workaround.
When using percent we often relate that to the viewport width, so with that in mind, viewport units vw/vh can be an option, since it works similar (responsive).
Stack snippet
.outer {
display: flex;
width: 100%;
background: blue;
}
.inner {
width: 50%;
background: yellow;
padding-bottom: 50vw;
}
<div class="outer">
<div class="inner">
<a>hehe</a>
</div>
</div>
Updated based on a comment
If a square is a must, and viewport units or script can't be used, here is another trick using a dummy image.
Note, as image also a SVG or a Base64 could be used as a datauri to save an extra round trip to the server
.outer {
display: flex;
width: 100%;
background: blue;
}
.inner {
width: 50%;
background: yellow;
}
.inner img {
display: block;
width: 100%;
visibility: hidden;
}
<div class="outer">
<div class="inner">
<img src="http://placehold.it/10" alt="">
</div>
</div>

Related

CSS - max-width Causes Spacing Issue In Parent

I have two DIVs on my site, both set to display: inline-block. Setting width: auto on the parent should cause it to use only the space occupied by the child.
However, when I use a large width on the child but override it with max-width and min(...) the parent size ignores the width (large whitespace on the right). In the following example you can clearly see that the max-width gets applied, but the auto keyword ignores it and stretches the parent anyway.
I want the parent element to only use the horizontal space necessary. Any idea on how to fix it? Thanks!
.wrapper-1{
display: inline-block;
width: auto;
background-color: blue;
}
.hello-world{
display: inline-block;
width: 5000px;
max-width: min(100px, 100%);
background-color: yellow;
}
<div class="wrapper-1">
<div class="wrapper-2">
<div class="hello-world">Hello, world!</div>
</div>
</div>

How do I properly align buttons to the bottom of the parent? [duplicate]

I want to have a square div inside a flexbox. So I use:
.outer {
display: flex;
width: 100%;
background: blue;
}
.inner {
width: 50%;
background: yellow;
padding-bottom: 50%;
}
<div class="outer">
<div class="inner">
<a>hehe</a>
</div>
</div>
This works fine in Chrome. But in Firefox, the parent squeezes to just one line.
How do I solve this in Firefox? I use version 44.
You can also view the code at https://jsbin.com/lakoxi/edit?html,css
2018 Update
The flexbox specification has been updated.
4.2. Flex Item Margins and Paddings
Percentage margins and paddings on flex items, like those on block
boxes, are resolved against the inline size of their containing block,
e.g. left/right/top/bottom percentages all resolve against their
containing block’s width in horizontal writing modes.
Original Answer - applies to FF and Edge versions released before 2018
From the flexbox specification:
Authors should avoid using percentages in paddings or margins on flex items entirely, as they will get different behavior in different browsers.
Here's some more:
4.2. Flex Item Margins and Paddings
Percentage margins and paddings on flex items can be resolved against either:
their own axis (left/right percentages resolve against width, top/bottom resolve against height), or,
the inline axis (left/right/top/bottom percentages all resolve against width)
A User Agent must choose one of these two behaviors.
Note: This variance sucks, but it accurately captures the current state of the world (no consensus among implementations, and no consensus within the CSSWG). It is the CSSWG’s intention that browsers will converge on one of the behaviors, at which time the spec will be amended.
In addition to Michael_B's answer, here is a possible workaround.
When using percent we often relate that to the viewport width, so with that in mind, viewport units vw/vh can be an option, since it works similar (responsive).
Stack snippet
.outer {
display: flex;
width: 100%;
background: blue;
}
.inner {
width: 50%;
background: yellow;
padding-bottom: 50vw;
}
<div class="outer">
<div class="inner">
<a>hehe</a>
</div>
</div>
Updated based on a comment
If a square is a must, and viewport units or script can't be used, here is another trick using a dummy image.
Note, as image also a SVG or a Base64 could be used as a datauri to save an extra round trip to the server
.outer {
display: flex;
width: 100%;
background: blue;
}
.inner {
width: 50%;
background: yellow;
}
.inner img {
display: block;
width: 100%;
visibility: hidden;
}
<div class="outer">
<div class="inner">
<img src="http://placehold.it/10" alt="">
</div>
</div>

Why doesn't percentage padding / margin work on flex items in Firefox and Edge?

I want to have a square div inside a flexbox. So I use:
.outer {
display: flex;
width: 100%;
background: blue;
}
.inner {
width: 50%;
background: yellow;
padding-bottom: 50%;
}
<div class="outer">
<div class="inner">
<a>hehe</a>
</div>
</div>
This works fine in Chrome. But in Firefox, the parent squeezes to just one line.
How do I solve this in Firefox? I use version 44.
You can also view the code at https://jsbin.com/lakoxi/edit?html,css
2018 Update
The flexbox specification has been updated.
4.2. Flex Item Margins and Paddings
Percentage margins and paddings on flex items, like those on block
boxes, are resolved against the inline size of their containing block,
e.g. left/right/top/bottom percentages all resolve against their
containing block’s width in horizontal writing modes.
Original Answer - applies to FF and Edge versions released before 2018
From the flexbox specification:
Authors should avoid using percentages in paddings or margins on flex items entirely, as they will get different behavior in different browsers.
Here's some more:
4.2. Flex Item Margins and Paddings
Percentage margins and paddings on flex items can be resolved against either:
their own axis (left/right percentages resolve against width, top/bottom resolve against height), or,
the inline axis (left/right/top/bottom percentages all resolve against width)
A User Agent must choose one of these two behaviors.
Note: This variance sucks, but it accurately captures the current state of the world (no consensus among implementations, and no consensus within the CSSWG). It is the CSSWG’s intention that browsers will converge on one of the behaviors, at which time the spec will be amended.
In addition to Michael_B's answer, here is a possible workaround.
When using percent we often relate that to the viewport width, so with that in mind, viewport units vw/vh can be an option, since it works similar (responsive).
Stack snippet
.outer {
display: flex;
width: 100%;
background: blue;
}
.inner {
width: 50%;
background: yellow;
padding-bottom: 50vw;
}
<div class="outer">
<div class="inner">
<a>hehe</a>
</div>
</div>
Updated based on a comment
If a square is a must, and viewport units or script can't be used, here is another trick using a dummy image.
Note, as image also a SVG or a Base64 could be used as a datauri to save an extra round trip to the server
.outer {
display: flex;
width: 100%;
background: blue;
}
.inner {
width: 50%;
background: yellow;
}
.inner img {
display: block;
width: 100%;
visibility: hidden;
}
<div class="outer">
<div class="inner">
<img src="http://placehold.it/10" alt="">
</div>
</div>

Why doesn't "margin: auto" center an element vertically?

As you can see in the demo below, margin: auto; centers the blue div horizontally, but not vertically. Why not?
.box {
border: 1px solid red;
width: 100px;
height: 100px;
}
.center {
background: blue;
width: 50px;
height: 50px;
margin: auto;
}
<div class="box">
<div class="center"></div>
</div>
My question is not asking for workarounds.
As mentioned, this behavior is specified in section 10.6.2 of CSS2.1, and has remained unchanged from CSS2.
Block boxes are stacked vertically from top to bottom in normal flow. Furthermore, vertical margins may collapse, and only do so under certain circumstances (in your demo, the border on the parent element will prevent any margins on the child element from collapsing with its own). If you only have one such block box, and the height of the containing block is auto, then its top and bottom margins will be zero anyway. But if you have more than one block box in the same flow, or even out-of-flow boxes affecting the layout of in-flow boxes (in the case of clearance for example), how would you expect auto margins to resolve for those in-flow boxes?
This is why auto left and right margins are likewise zeroed out for inline elements (including atomic inlines) and floats (though horizontal margins never collapse). Inline-level boxes are laid along line boxes, and floats too obey unique layout rules.
Absolutely positioned boxes are a different story: since they are never aware of any other boxes in the same positioning context as themselves, auto top and bottom margins can be calculated for them with respect to their containing blocks without having to worry about any other boxes ever interfering.
Flexbox is also a different story: what sets flex layout apart from block layout is that flex items are by definition always aware of other flex items in the same flex formatting context, including the fact that there are none. In particular, neither can floats intrude into the flex container, nor can you float flex items to subvert this (although you can still remove a child element from flex layout completely with absolute positioning). Margins behave very differently with flex items due in part to this. See sections 4.2, 9.5 and 9.6.
Why...because the W3C spec says so.
If 'margin-top', or 'margin-bottom' are 'auto', their used value is 0.
As to the actual "why"...the query should really be addressed there.
It doesn't center the element vertically because it is a block-level element in the normal flow. Thus, the following rule applies:
If margin-top, or margin-bottom are auto, their used value is 0.
It's also worth pointing out that the rule above also applies to the following elements as well: (see points 10.6.2 and 10.6.3 for more information and conditions).
Inline replaced elements
Block-level replaced elements in normal flow
inline-block replaced elements in normal flow
Floating replaced elements
Block-level non-replaced elements in normal flow when overflow computes to visible
With that being said, absolutely positioned, non-replaced elements that don't have top, height, and bottom values of auto are an exception to this rule. The following applies from point 10.6.4:
If none of the three top, height, and bottom are auto and if both margin-top and margin-bottom are auto, solve the equation under the extra constraint that the two margins get equal values.
See the example below demonstrating how an absolutely positioned element is vertically centered using margin: auto. It works because none of the three properties top, height, and bottom have a value of auto:
.box {
border: 1px solid red;
width: 100px;
height: 100px;
position: relative;
}
.center {
background: blue;
width: 50px;
height: 50px;
margin: auto;
position: absolute;
top: 0; right: 0;
bottom: 0; left: 0;
}
<div class="box">
<div class="center"></div>
</div>
In addition, it's probably worth pointing out the following rule as well:
If one of margin-top or margin-bottom is auto, solve the equation for that value. If the values are over-constrained, ignore the value for bottom and solve for that value.
This means that if the absolutely positioned element has a margin-top value of auto and a margin-bottom value of 0 (i.e., margin: auto auto 0), the element would be absolutely positioned at the bottom relative to the parent like in the example below:
.box {
border: 1px solid red;
width: 100px;
height: 100px;
position: relative;
}
.center {
background: blue;
width: 50px;
height: 50px;
margin: auto auto 0;
position: absolute;
top: 0; right: 0;
bottom: 0; left: 0;
}
<div class="box">
<div class="center"></div>
</div>
Why doesn't margin:auto work vertically?
Actually, it does – just not for every display value.
If display is flex, margin: auto centers both vertically and horizontally.
The same applies to display: inline-flex, display: grid and display: inline-grid.
.box {
border: 1px solid red;
width: 100px;
height: 100px;
display: flex; /* new */
}
.center {
background: blue;
width: 50px;
height: 50px;
margin: auto;
}
<div class="box">
<div class="center"></div>
</div>
It's because of the actual possibility of knowing the true height of the element in which you want to center vertically in. To understand that, first think about how auto horizontal centering works. You have a div which you've given it a width (fixed or percentage). The width can be calculated to certain degree. If it's fixed width, great. If it's flexible or responsive (percentage) at least you have a range that the width will cover before it hits the next breakpoint. You take that width, minus whatever it's inside and split the remainder on both sides.
Now, with that information, how could the browser calculate the infinite amount of variations in which your div will grow vertically? Keep in mind the size of the element, wrapping of text, paddings, and responsiveness will also alter the width and force the text to wrap further, and on, and on it goes.
Is it an impossible task? Not really, has CSS spent time and effort covering this? Not worth their time, I guess.
And that is basically the answer I tell my students.
But....fret not! Bootstrap v4 alpha has figured out vertical centering!
EDIT
Sorry to edit this late but I thought you may want to consider this solutions to center vertically and it is pretty simple by making use of the calc function
<div class="foo"></div>
.foo {
background-color: red;
height: 6em;
left: calc(50% - 3em);
position: absolute;
top: calc(50% - 3em);
width: 6em;
}
See it HERE

Break letters of second child div

I have one requirement, where I need to apply width to the parent element which is equal to the first child element's width. This can be easily achieved using display: inline-block or float: left to the parent element if it has only one child element. But I have more than two child elements in a div. Something like this:
Fiddle
<div class="main">
<div class="first">first</div>
<div class="value">valuevalue</div>
</div>
Right now, If I apply display: inline-block to the parent element, then it is having the width of the second child element.
To not happen this, I tried break-word, word-break css properties on the second child element but still no use.
What I am trying to get is illustrated in the following screenshot:
Some important points:
width of the parent element should be equal to the first child element.
height of the parent element should be equal to sum of all the child elements.
I don't know the width of the first child element.
(EDIT) The first child element has some fixed width and height. I don't know these values.
I want to do this using just css. css3 is welcome. (I know how to do this using javascript)
You can Achieve this easily with CSS3's new intrinsic and extrinsic width values(min-content in this cas), although, it's not supported on IE, so it's not an viable option but I will just post this as it's interesting that we will be able to do that in the future:
http://jsfiddle.net/S87nE/
HTML:
<div class="main">
<div class="first">first</div>
<div class="value">valuevaluevalue</div>
</div>
CSS:
.main {
background-color: cornflowerblue;
width: -moz-min-content;
width: -webkit-min-content;
width: min-content;
}
.first {
width: 50px; /* I don't know this width */
height: 50px; /* I don't know this height */
background-color: grey;
}
.value{
word-break: break-all;
}
I guess in the worst case you could use this for newer browsers and JS for IE and older versions.
Reference:
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-sizing/#width-height-keywords
http://demosthenes.info/blog/662/Design-From-the-Inside-Out-With-CSS-MinContent
Ideally, the layout style for a HTML snippet like:
<div class="main">
<div class="first">first</div>
<div class="value">firstvaluevalue</div>
<div class="value">second value value</div>
<div class="value">third valuevalue</div>
<div class="value">valuevalue on the fourth line</div>
</div>
is achievable using the following CSS:
.main {
display: inline-block;
background-color: cornflowerblue;
position: relative;
width: 50px;
}
.first {
width: 50px; /* I don't know this width */
height: 50px; /* I don't know this height */
background-color: grey;
}
.value {
word-break: break-all;
margin: 1.00em 0;
}
as shown in: http://jsfiddle.net/audetwebdesign/tPjem/
However, I had to set the width of .main to that of the .first element in order to get the word-break property to take effect.
The CSS rendering problem here is that you want the width of the .value siblings to be equal to the unknown width of .first, which cannot be done with CSS alone.
CSS rendering is essentially a one-pass top-to-bottom algorithm which means that parent elements cannot inherit values from child elements (tables have a multi-pass algorithm but this won't help in this case). This may change in future versions of CSS, but for the we need to design according to these limitations.
The JavaScript/jQuery solution is to get the width from .first and apply it to .main and bind that to a window re-size action.
In some ways, this problem seems to make sense if .first contains an image which would have an intrinsic height and width. If this were the case, it might make sense to set the width of .main to a reasonable value and then scale the image in .first to fill the width of the .main block.
Without knowing more about the actual content, it is hard to come up with alternatives.
Look at my latest comment for the Fiddle link. I changed some things in the html too. Did set the value div inside the first div to use it's width and added word-wrap to the value div.
.main {
display: inline-block;
background-color: cornflowerblue;
position: relative;
}
.first {
width: 50px; /* I don't know this width */
position: relative;
background-color: grey;
}
.first p {
margin-bottom: 30px;
margin-top: 0;
}
.value {
max-width: 100%;
word-wrap:break-word;
background-color: cornflowerblue;
}
html:
<div class="main">
<div class="first">
<p>first</p>
<div class="value">valuevalue</div>
</div>
</div>
http://jsfiddle.net/jxw4q/12/
Important
this answer may not be useful for you, but can help other user who have a similar problem.
you can have the same look as you desire, but without really stretching the parent height. by using position:absolute; on the second div.
Notice: if the parent don't really stretch, it causes problems.
for example, content that will come directly after the parent, will be showed after the .first element. causing an overlap.
you still can use this for cases where this is the only content in the page, and you want the second div to adjust his width to the first.
(I don't think that this is your case, but maybe it will help other user who might stumble into that question.)
anyway, I think that your only option is to use a Script.
For those who fall under the use-case I've described, Here's a Working Fiddle
HTML: (no changes here)
<div class="main">
<div class="first">First div set the width</div>
<div class="value">second fiv should wrap if bigger then first</div>
</div>
CSS:
.main
{
display: inline-block;
position: relative;
}
.first
{
background-color: gray;
}
.value
{
position: absolute;
background-color: cornflowerblue; /* moved here */
}
I don't think you will be able to achieve it without a little help of javascript. Imagine the the following markup and css :
<div class="main">
<div class="first content">first</div>
<div class="second content">valuevalue</div>
</div>
and then the following css :
.main{
background-color : red;
display: inline-block;
max-width: 50px;
}
.first{
background-color : blue;
}
.second{
background-color : green;
}
.content{
word-break: break-word;
}
Now all you gotta do is to set the max-width of your .main div to be equal to your first element and add the content class to each element. I suppose you are adding your elements dynamically.
I got the solution!!
HTML
<div class="main">
<div class="first">first</div>
<div class="value">valuevalue</div>
</div>
CSS
.main {
overflow:hidden;
width:1px;
display:table;
background-color: cornflowerblue;
}
.first {
width: 50px; /* I don't know this width */
height: 50px; /* I don't know this height */
background-color: grey;
display: inline-block;
}
.value {
word-break: break-all;
}
Working Fiddle
Related link