This code (jsfiddle):
<table style="border:1px solid black;width:auto;">
<tr>
<td style="width:100%;">hello.</td>
<td style="width:100%;">World</td>
</tr>
</table>
produces a table expanded to the width of the window, with the first td expanding to fill. The second td remains at its minimum size.
According to the CSS specification, a percentage on the width property refers to the width of the containing block.
In this situation I'd intuitively expect the excess width to be shared by the two cells. However, I haven't found anything in the Tables section of the specification that describes the definitive behavior in such a case.
Question: What is the definitive behavior here according to CSS specifications?
Note: I'm not looking for "fixed" versions of this code. I just want to understand the behavior of this code as it is based on the official CSS specification.
As I guess, when the table has width:auto or even width:100% how is it possible that two td having width:100% in same table.? which means 100%+100% = 200%. Simply second td has no width as first td already took the available width trying to get 100% and remaining space goes to second td.
We may set the table-layout to fixed. See the snippet.
table{table-layout:fixed}
td {border:1px solid #ddd;}
<table style="border:1px solid black;width:100%;">
<tr>
<td style="width:100%;">hello.</td>
<td style="width:100%;">World</td>
</tr>
</table>
Related
I have a Vertical white 1px on my image in windows outlook 2007 & 2010 for my HTML email.
I don't know why this is happening. This only happens in windows outlook so far from what i've seen. And not any other client.
Heres a photo
<tr>
<td id="header" class="w640" width="640" align="center" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<img editable label='header image' src="images/header.gif" class="header" width="640">
</td>
</tr>
I came across two possible reasons for this behavior of borders in Outlook while googling :
Outlook adds 1px border to the table cell elements. You can get rid of it by using border-collapse : collapse CSS property to your table cells and cellpadding="0" and cellspacing="0" attributes to the table element. The strange thing that this border appears to be only on the right side of the td, but it can be so due to <img> layout.
If you want to look for more information about this issue you can follow this link.
If you are setting somewhere in CSS classes your border to something like border: 0px style color (or not setting at all) (the main part here is setting border-width to 0px) it will be ignored by Outlook, so you can make it to not display border at all by setting border-style : none. I guess this is closer to your problem, as I've found a similar sample picture here.
This extra space could be caused by numerous things:
the image is incorrectly sized and is smaller than its container
if you are scaling the image to a size other than its original size Outlook will likely ignore these attributes and continue displaying it at the original size.
if your attempting to use margin or padding properties
if you are not collapsing your cells with table td { border-collapse:collapse } and table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"
if you are not making the image display:block
if you mistakenly overlooked stray while space within the actual image (improper slicing)
if, somewhere above or below this cell, you have content causing the table or cell width to be stretched further than it should.
Also, just from the code sample you posted.. You should remove the bgcolor from your cell and you should also remove the width from the img but leave it on the cell.
Updated Fiddle
Usually when I have this type of issues I wrap my td with a table. Below there is a part of your markup at the point where you have the image.
<td>
<table width="640" border="0" style="width:640px;border-collapse:collapse;padding:0;margin:0;">
<tr>
<td>
<img editable label='header image' src="http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTDhTODtu4yyVkbK7GUbFKctbR8Rgry7BRXnaC9Ztgls1vEVqsV" class="header" width="640" >
</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
This will fix your problem.
Our application makes heavy use of tables for layout and positioning, and has in the past been IE (quirks-mode) only. Moving forward, we are trying to get out of quirks mode, and replace the tables with divs and a more semantic layout.
The one thing stopping us is a quirks mode "feature" which allowed us to set height=100% on a table row, and have the row take up the remaing vertical space. So far, we have not been able to find a way to do this outside of quirks mode, either with or without tables.
This is the code we are using in the body of the page. No styling shown here, but the effect is still the same:
<table width="100%" height="100%" border="0">
<tr>
<td>
<table width="100%" height="100%" border="1">
<tr>
<th>This is my header bar</th>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr height="100%">
<td>
<table width="100%" height="100%" border="1">
<tr>
<td>This is my main section bar</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<table width="100%" height="100%" border="1">
<tr>
<td>This is my footer bar</th>
</tr>
</table>
</td>
</tr>
This is what it looks like in Quirks mode. Note that the middle row (with height="100%") has expanded to take up the remaining vertical space:
Standards mode renders the same code like this:
jsFiddle with the code: http://jsfiddle.net/RBeWN/3/ (Note that due to iFrames, etc. the code won't actually render in quirks mode on jsFiddle but you can force it by using Dev Tools).
I attempted to do this with divs and some css, but it doesn't work: http://jsfiddle.net/BVMhR/3/. Setting the main div to height: 100%; gives it the same height as its parent, rather than making it take the remaining space. Setting box-sizing: border-box; makes no difference to this either.
Could someone help me find a solution to this problem? I'd like to be able to do it without javascript if at all possible, but if Javascript is needed, it would have to be a generic solution that can run on every page so that there isn't too much development overhead for setting it up.
After playing around with quite a few different layouts, and clarifying a few specifics regarding the requirements, I have found a way to do this with pure CSS.
It does involve knowing the heights of both the top and bottom row (although they could be specified in %), and also does involve a few extra layers of divs.
My example can be found in this jsFiddle. Notice that when expanding / shrinking the window, the middle row re-sizes appropriately. It is also possible to make this one into a scrolling div if necessary (with overflow: auto) so that the content will scroll when it is too long.
Feel free to contact me with any extra questions about this layout if needed.
I don't think this can be solved with pure CSS.
http://jsfiddle.net/AZcZx/10/
This is how I would do it with javascript... I'm sortof assuming based on your names for the divs that this is how your pages handled header, content, footer and so this should be general enough for that.
I've added borders/margins to show that there is an edge case there, which jQuery helps nicely with... I also assume that the content vertical centering in your quirks-mode example is not part of the question.
EDIT:
I stand corrected. It can be done with CSS, though it creates a width issue that was not quite trivial to fix, so here's the fix for that:
http://jsfiddle.net/AZcZx/27/
Do you know the height of the header and the footer? Looking at your fiddle example with the divs, they both have a fixed height. If that is the case you could just absolutely position them to the top and bottom, and add a margin to the top and bottom of your #divMain.
You also need the html and body set to height: 100%; and the #divMain set to min-height: 100%;
You need to expand the body and HTML to 100% for this to work. "height:100%" makes an item 100% of its parent. Without a defined size of the parent, it will only be as large as its children.
body, html {height:100%}
such problem with firefox.
<td height="10" style="border:1px solid #990000;"> </td>
gives red line border, but I need height 10, with it doens't stand height 10, without it firefox doesn't show the red line.
anyone one a way?
Make sure your table does not have the CSS empty-cells:hide; applied to it. You can apply the direct opposite value inline (opposite is show), but this is the default value so unless you're setting it to hide in some page-level CSS, this should not even be necessary.
Another CSS item that can affect empty table cells is border-collapse. Ensure that you are not setting it to collapse. The default is separate, again you can either ensure that no page-level CSS changes this style, or you can explicitly add it to the table inline.
<table style="empty-cells:show; border-collapse:separate;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="height:10px; border:1px solid #990000;"></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
http://jsfiddle.net/yHrhu/
In fact, using the non-breaking space ( ) may cause the cell to be larger than the specified 10px, since the space will be of the same font size as any text in the element. If you are using any font size that is larger than 10px, the cell would be bigger than intended.
additional to Chris's answer.
Make sure your TD's does not have position:relative applied.
Just stumble around this problem myself today turnout set the background into none or transparent make the border visible again.
table.table tr{
background: transparent;
}
Is there a way for expanding the width of a TD in the table based on the width of the next TD?
The asp:Panel is going to be hidden or displayed based on some condition in the code behind.
I'm thinking it's some CSS thing that would help me fix this, but unable to put a finger on it. Help!
Here's the HTML Markup:
<tr>
<td class="content_body" style="width: 294px">
This is some long text needs to be dynamically wrapped...............................................................
</td>
<td>
<asp:Panel ID="Panel1" runat="server">
This is going to be hidden based on some condition in the Code behind
</asp:Panel>
</td>
</tr>
One thing to try would be to leave the width off of the TD that needs to expand/shrink based on the other TDs. Without a width, a TD will by default take up any available space, so if the other TDs in the row all have a width specified, the one without a width will take up the rest of the space. If there are 2 such TDs, the space will be distributed between them.
With jQuery, you could apply an id to the top td in the two columns and then do something like:
$('#tda').width(($('#tdb').width() > 200) ? 10 : 100)
This sets the width of td with id tda to 10 if td with id b is greater than 200 else it will set it to 100.
Please consider the following:
<td style="width: 500px;">
<div style="width: 400px;">SomeContent</div>
</td>
For some reason, the column that contains a div will not expand to 500px as the style suggests.
Do you know how to get the td to honor the width that I am specifying in the style?
In theory, you can use the min-width and max-width styles. In practice, some popular browsers ignore these styles. In this case you have explicitly declared a width of 400, so it should always equal 400 unless acted upon by a child growing or a parent shrinking. You could runat-"server" and programatically determine the width attribute based on content size, or you could play with the overflow style, or put it in a Panel with a horizontal scrollbar.
is there a width on the table and other tds within the table? Also, have you got a doc type going on?
However, that said, here's your solution:
<td style="width: 500px">
<div style="padding: 0 50px">SomeContent</div>
</td>
Setting your padding appropriately.
Having reread your question, I feel that this might not be the answer you're looking for. Could you elaborate a little more?
try this:
<td style="width:500px;">
<div style="width:100%;">SomeContent</div>
</td>
if however you want the td to be the exact size of the div, to a MAX of 500px, then try:
<td style="max-width:500px;">
<div style="width:100%;">SomeContent</div>
</td>
Keeping in mind that IE6 doesn't understand max-width, and will just force it to be 500px.
You have no reason to set a fixed width on the DIV within the TD, by default DIV's are block elements which means they will fill the full width of there containing element.
Either set padding on the TD or margin on the DIV to achieve the same style.
Without seeing futher markup or css i can't see any reason why the TD would not be 500px, if you added two different background colors to the elements you will indeed noticed that the TD will be 100px wider than the div.