I'm trying to set a div the width of the screen but without using:
div {
position: relative;
left: 0;
right: 0;
}
because this breaks the template.
It that possible?
As mentioned in the Bootstrap documentation, you have two different types of container classes to work with. One with a fixed width called "container" and one called "container-fluid" which is spanning the entire width of your viewport.
Link to the bootstrap documentation: http://getbootstrap.com/css/#overview-container
Code:
<div class="container-fluid">
...
</div>
You did not submit any code though I'll answer your question sans Twitter.
Even if the parent element is statically defined all the child elements will dynamically flow (within the parent's limitations) until you put static limitations on those child elements.
main {bottom: 0; left: 0; overflow: auto; position: absolute; right: 0; top: 0;}
All the elements in the main element in this example will still dynamically expand to use 100% of the width of the screen, regardless of what kind of screen.
Without using the position property if you don't set a width a block element like a div will automatically use 100% of the available width of it's parent unless it is set to float; adding margin or padding will subtract from the content width unless you specify a width (other than inherent or auto).
I'm going to presume that there is existing content on the page you're working with so unless you can edit the entire (X)HTML of the page then there is a chance you'll be forced to use the position property.
Related
I am trying to fit a progress bar into the parent, which is oddly difficult. It is done on a Jot form, but with access to custom CSS and so on, which I have utilized a lot (that could have created the problem I guess).
The progress bar is positioned fixed at the top, and is in the parent element div.form-all as the very first and second element. I have tried all the common suggestions on here about box-sizing and so on, but nothing seems to work.
My suspicion is that it is because the parent element does not have an explicitly stated width, as this fixes the problem monumentally (but breaks the responsiveness, as it goes from ≈36% width to 100% on small screens).
Any help would be greatly appreciated. The actual form can be found here, at Jot form, in Danish:
All added custom CSS should be visible by inspecting the elements, but I will mention that it has worked before.
The div containing the progress div has the following css-attributes:
.progressBarContainer.fixed {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
width: inherit;
background: #FFF;
z-index: 9999;}
The parent has by Jotform-coding the following relevant attributes, with no position attribute:
.form-all {
width: 690px;
width: 100%;
max-width: 690px;}
Thank you in advance, Kris.
Absolute Position Solution:
You said you are using position: fixed, but this won't inherit the width of the parent. You need to change .progressBarContainer.fixed to position: absolute, and then the form parent, .form-all, add position: relative.
This will then set the width of the progress bar to be the same as the form.
Fixed Position Solution:
There are a number of ways you can keep the progress bar sticky on the screen. You will either have to explicitly state the max-width of the progress bar in the CSS, or CSS with a JavaScript solution. The simple CSS solution would be to keep position: fixed assigned to .progressBarContainer.fixed, but then you have to specify max-width: 690px to .progressBarContainer.fixed.
Its position is fixed that's why it gets the whole screen's width when it's set to 100% width. See here for reference
Assuming that you want the progress bar to stick to the top and since the container element .form-all has a max-width property of 690px try applying it to the progress bar element as well to prevent it from expanding to 100% of the screen width.
Otherwise simply remove the fixed positioning from the progress bar.
Basically what I want to do, is exactly the same as this question: Is there are way to make a child DIV's width wider than the parent DIV using CSS?
The only issue is that the Drupal theme I'm using is based off of bootstrap which makes the parent element (col-sm-12) have a position: relative;.
I could do the whole :
#my_div_id {
position: absolute;
left: 0;
width: 100%;
}
And remove the position: relative; from the Bootstrap css definitions of all of the col-sm-* classes, but would that cause any adverse issues?
In short, the answer is yes. See this bootply
Without knowing your specific requirements, I simply allowed a row to extend beyond the container width with this CSS:
.row.expanded{
width:120%;
margin-left:-10%;
}
That makes it wider than the parent, and keeps it centered.
I was fiddling with my web-app to try and get a div to wrap around some p elements. The structure looks like this, i.e. pseudo-code ...
<div id='outer'>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
</div>
What I found is that if I set the outer div to
position:absolute;
instead of
position:relative
that the div would correctly wrap around only the p elements.
Otherwise it would extend all the way to the very right of the page, and I had previously had to set the width manually.
What is governing this behavior?
Also, the p tags use
display:inline
and the containing div just uses the default display.
This CSS below works well in my app.
// outer div
#mi_control {
position: absolute;
left: 580px;
top: 660px;
width: auto;
padding-top: 5px;
padding-bottom: 5px;
}
// p elements
.menu_bottom {
margin-left: 18px;
display: inline;
}
This is a common issue..
I quote:
Question: relative div takes 100% width automatically but absolute div only takes content width. why?
Answer: Setting position:absolute removes the element in question from the normal flow of the docment structure. So unless you explicitly set a width it won't know how wide to be. you can explicitly set width:100% if that is the effect you're after.
By default, a div element is set to display: block;. Block elements will be 100% of the width of the parent element.
When you set an element to position: absolute; it takes it out of the document flow and the element is no longer sized according to the parent element. It can mess with your layout though.
My recommendation is to set the div element to display: inline-block; - this will make it sized as per its contents, but will not remove it from the flow of the document.
#outer
{
display: inline-block;
}
I don't know exactly what rules governing this behavior but what you observed is the right behavior and is consistent across all browsers. A DIV takes minimum width when its position is set to absolute or fixed; otherwise it takes full available width.
The default value for width for a div element is auto.
This means that it will take up the full with of the available space, or more if the contents forces it to. If you use position: absolute however, you take the element out of the document flow. As there is nothing that it can relate to as the full width any more, it will use the width that the contents forces it to use.
The behaviour is governed by the spec. Absolute positioned elements have dedicated rules about how widths are calculated: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#abs-non-replaced-width and http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visudet.html#abs-replaced-width
Once it is set to absolute, it is taken out of the normal flow of content. Absolutely positioned elements always appear in the top left corner, unless otherwise specified. The element will also shrink to be only as big as it has to, because that's how position:absolute works
divs naturally have a width of 100%, so that is why you have to set the width manually. Relatively positioned elements behave almost identically to statically positioned elements. The only difference is how they can be moved
Not sure what you are seeing but even if your div is positioned absolutely, it will STILL wrap your P tags
http://jsfiddle.net/8MSDH/
you are seeing it at the bottom right because you set your top and left
left: 580px;
top: 660px;
I know that position: fixed makes an element relative to the viewport instead of it's offsetParent however I have an issue where I have a side element which takes x amount of space and then some fixed position heading elements which I want to take up a percentage of the remaining viewport width.
See fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/U5DSZ/
Now I could put all the h1 element's into their own container but then they lose their semantic meaning as they are no longer associated with their content.
I understand JavaScript could do this but I am against using JavaScript for page structure.
Is there a way to do this in a purely HTML or CSS way? I don't mind moving the h1 element's as long as they retain their relationship with the content and the content remains statically positioned.
You can get the effect that you want as follows.
Your HTML snippet is good as is:
<div id="content">
<section>
<h1>Heading 1</h1>
<p>...</p>
</section>
<section>
<h1>Heading 2</h1>
<p>...</p>
</section>
</div>
and the CSS is good but just requires some explanation:
#content {
overflow: visible; /* default, but important to notice */
}
section {
float: left;
width: 25%;
}
h1 {
position: fixed;
width: 25%;
background: #00FF00;
text-align: center;
}
and the demo fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/audetwebdesign/4zLMq/
How This Works
Your #content block takes up the remaining width to the right of your 200px left floated sidebar.
Within #content, you have two left-floated section elements that take up 25% of the parent container, which in this case, is the width of the view port panel.
Your child h1 elements have position: fixed, which means that their width of 25% is also computed based on the width of the viewport (not #content).
Case 1
If you want h1 and #content to have the same width, they need to have the same relative (25%) computed from the same containing block (view port in this case).
However, the value of 25% is not 25% of the remaining space after you account for the floated sidebar. However, maybe you can live with this.
Case 2
You could make the width values a bit easier to determine if you set the sidebar width to be a relative value. Using mixed units is always an issue.
tldr; Shorter and cleaner solution:
h1 {
width: inherit;
...
I stumbled upon this question, with a similar issue : my container's size can be user defined through resize:both (and moveable too!).
If I followed the accepted solution, it implied I had to apply the same props to my fixed header inside my container (top, left, width and height…).
Instead, inheriting the width from the parent container works properly. I found this way much simpler, and it makes more sense too, tested on major browsers and mobiles (demo).
I want to display a children element of my html page all over the browser window.. in other words I would like to enlarge it and keep it the same size the browser window also when it is resized after loading.
I was wondering if I have to move this object outside the parent elements or I can set these properties with css.
At the moment if I set width:100% and height:100%, it fits the parent (of course) and not the window.
thanks
It is typically better to use relative positioning when possible, and any large child elements should be equal to the parent. But you can always absolutely position it:
position:absolute;
width:100%;
height:100%;
left:0px;
top: 0px;
width is easy:
width: 100%;
for height, you need something like this:
100% Height Layout Using CSS
Width always aplies regarding to the parent element. You could use absolute positioning to have that particular element "out" of it's parent (regarding positioning and flow, that is), and set it to 100%. Be carefull though, it might no end up where you want it to be visually.
.someElement {
position: absolute;
width: 100%;
height: 400px;
}
The parent element cannot have "position:relative" specified for this to work.