See My Fiddle:
http://jsfiddle.net/5BEsZ/
I've discovered something very strange that I haven't seen documented anywhere else... Was wondering if you all had a solution.
You'll notice the negative margin hits a limit at around -212% for image elements. Is there a reason for this? Can you think of a work around?
Why I Need This (what I've tried):
I'm making a fluid layout and I want to display a rating system. I have a sprite sheet of stars (similar to the one in the fiddle) that I want to reuse at various sizes.
Because the size changes I can't use a background image. So I decided to use an image inside a container with a variable width and overflow:hidden. The sprite sheet adjusts to the width of the container and the container's viewable content is determined by a padding-top:20%. This is so it can be fluid with its width (since every star is a box, the total height is 20% the width).
Then I try and position the star image inside the container with margin-top. I tried using position:relative and a top:-X%, but because the container technically has no height this was causing issue on mobile phones (-100% of 0 is 0, etc).
So I assumed negative margin would work, but then discovered this strange issue!
NOTE: Because it affects only the last row I can make it work in my situation by using a padding-bottom instead of top (thereby bumping every star row up 1), but this isn't an adequate solution for me because it just ignores the problem. What if I wanted quarter stars?
I've updated your fiddle. img tags are "inline" elements by default, which impacts the way margin is calculated relative to the containing element. By forcing the image element to be rendered like a block (display: block), you're able to achieve the results you were expecting. A div element is a block by default.
As a side note, you'll want to avoid using inline styles (a different sort of "inline"!) wherever possible. Typically your styles would be included in a stylesheet instead of in a style attribute directly on the element. I included the fix (display: block) in the attribute to match the code style of your html.
I don't know why, but if you float the image the problem goes away.
<img src="http://www.whitepages.com/common/images/sprite_stars.gif?1343868502" id="stars" style="width:100%; float: left;" />
So, the answer to fix your problem: http://jsfiddle.net/5BEsZ/2/
If anyone could explain why this happens?
Related
I want to create a button/link that is centered in the content area of a webpage. Because it's a button, and not just a link, I'm adding some padding and background colour to it.
The link is centered horizontally, but the padding seems to expand outside the line-height of the parent element, causing it to overlap with previous/next elements. See: http://fths.convoke.info/what-can-i-do/
I tried creating a fiddle, but wasn't seeing the same issue: http://jsfiddle.net/convoke/g9wu6ws9/
So what am I missing? Conversely, is there a better way to center a link like this? I don't like using margin: auto because it requires you specify the width. Ideally the width would be dynamic, so if the text on the button was longer or shorter, it would remain centered.
In this case, the answer I needed came from user #CBroe in the comments of my original question. He suggested using display:inline-block and that worked like a charm.
Still unsure as to why I was getting different results on the fiddle vs the actual website...
In all major browsers: as the question states, a parent <div> container (whose height is not set) over-sizes its height to fit a child <img> element (for instance, a 300-pixel tall image that is the only thing inside the div). The over-sizing is usually about 3 to 5 pixels, and appears at first as img margin-bottom or div padding-bottom might look.
However, using absolute positioning, it is clearly demonstrated that the bottom of the div is below the bottom of the imgby a few pixels. It might not ruin a website's design, but it is a hurdle to overcome in certain situations. I have made a fairly detailed fiddle demonstrating this issue here.
Why is this standard practice in web browsers?
Is this meant to compensate for something? It seems unnecessary.
Is this a bug, or a soon-to-be antiquated feature?
EDIT: Thanks to the answerers/commentators below, I know the reason is that an <img> is treated by default as CSS
display:inline which preserves whitespace around the element.
Changing it to display:block completely fixes the problem by
eliminating whitespace around the element.
Notes: This over-sizing can be averted by giving the image child element a CSS property of float:left or float:right, etc., but this is a workaround, and as such is not the answer to the question. One reason this can be problematic is if you already have other float elements layered in front of the div child image (float overlap not allowed Firefox, Opera, IE. float overlapping only seems allowed in Chrome and Safari using CSS position settings). Thanks!
Add display:block to your image. I think that will fix the problem.
I have this and it got an HTML img#logo-image, on some occasions it will not be displayed, display:none.
The problem is that the entire div#menu-title should fit the width of the page.
I tried putting width:100%, but when the img#logo-imag" is displayed it breaks the line being below the img#logo-image.
The width:100% does not work with elements float:left
Just unfloat the menu-title div and remove the width.. it will automatically be 100% of the header then.. and if the image is present it will adjust the ul#menu list to make room for it, which is a natural behaviour
if you want the menu-list to really only take the available width (say for a background color or something then you can add overflow: hidden; to ul#menu - though I don't see a need for that in your example code
here's a simplified version of your Fiddle - hover on the header to make the image disappear and see the ul#menu adjust to suit
Example Fiddle
You have both logo-image and menu-title floating left. Since they arent really in separate divs, they are all part of the same div, they appear next to each other. On top of that, you set the menu-title to be 760, which isn't the width of the page. At least that what it looks like you did. Do not use width 100% because resizing the page will shrink that menu title.
You really just have to play around with the divs, but i would say that separating those two divs would make you be able to stack them on top or below each other.
And in using Chrome's inspect element feature, I don't see a display:none for the image's css. I don't know why that would do that.
I'm really not sure of what you are trying to accomplish since making the div#menu-title width: 100% doesn't leave any room for anything else on the same row.
Why not let them both be inline and let the widths be whatever they need to be?
Anyway, I have a guess at what you want. You want those two elements to behave as being in a table, inside a table row, and each in a table-cell so that the image takes a maximum width, and the div#menu-title taking all of the rest of the place. In that case put them in a table, or use display: table-cell for the image and the div and fiddle around with that.
I'm trying to make a box with rounded corners where the height and width of the div depends on the content, so it's automatically adjust to it...
You can see the example here: http://pastehtml.com/view/1duizyf.html
The problem is that i can't get the "test_mid_left" (black background) and "test_mid_right" (turquoise background) to inherit the height from the "test_mid_center" (green background). I have tried height: 100% and auto, but none of thoose work. So how do I get them to inherit the height from the content?
(The reason why I have used "min-height: xx" in the left and right content on the example is just to show which boxes I am talking about)
As already mentioned this can't be done with floats, they can't inherit heights, they're unaware of their siblings so for example the side two floats don't know the height of the centre content, so they can't inherit from anything.
Usually inherited height has to come from either an element which has an explicit height or if height: 100%; has been passed down through the display tree to it.. The only thing I'm aware of that passes on height which hasn't come from top of the "tree" is an absolutely positioned element - so you could for example absolutely position all the top right bottom left sides and corners (you know the height and width of the corners anyway) And as you seem to know the widths (of left/right borders) and heights of top/bottom) borders, and the widths of the top/bottom centers, are easy at 100% - the only thing that needs calculating is the height of the right/left sides if the content grows -
This you can do, even without using all four positioning co-ordinates which IE6 /7 doesn't support
I've put up an example based on what you gave, it does rely on a fixed width (your frame), but I think it could work with a flexible width too? the uses of this could be cool for those fancy image borders we can't get support for until multiple background images or image borders become fully available.. who knows, I was playing, so just sticking it out there!
proof of concept example is here
The Problem
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.
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
A Potential Solution
Now, I think the following article resembles what you're trying to do. Take a look at it and see if you can solve your problem.
Equal Height Columns with Cross-Browser CSS
I hope this helps.
The negative margin trick:
http://pastehtml.com/view/1dujbt3.html
Not elegant, I suppose, but it works in some cases.
You need to take out a float: left; property... because when you use float the parent div do not grub the height of it's children... If you want the parent dive to get the children height you need to give to the parent div a css property overflow:hidden;
But to solve your problem you can use display: table-cell; instead of float... it will automatically scale the div height to its parent height...
Most of the times, the Previous parent has a heigt manually set, so you can use that value as reference, no other dirty tricks will be needed, and if the number is not the same for any reason maybe a comment can be added with the original number so in case you need to change it, by searching at the all the values, this one can be adjusted or even changed, in the time someone resolve this one for us.
I have a bunch of float: left elements and some are SLIGHTLY bigger than others. I want the newline to break and have the images float all the way to the left instead of getting stuck on a bigger element.
Here is the page I'm talking about : link
If they are all the same size if works beautifully : link
Thanks! (I'd rather not get into javascript or server side scripting if I don't have to)
Well, if you really need to use float declarations, you have two options:
Use clear: left on the leftmost items - the con is that you'll have a fixed number of columns
Make the items equal in height - either by script or by hard-coding the height in the CSS
Both of these are limiting, because they work around how floats work. However, you may consider using display: inline-block instead of float, which will achieve the similar layout. You can then adjust their alignment using vertical-align.
I fixed it by removing float:left, and adding display:inline-block instead. Haven't used it for images, but should work fine, there, too.
Use display:inline-block
You may also find vertical-align: top or vertical-align:middle useful.
This is what I did. Seems to work in forcing a new line, but I'm not an html/css guru by any measure.
<p> </p>
You can wrap them in a div and give the div a set width (the width of the widest image + margin maybe?) and then float the divs. Then, set the images to the center of their containing divs. Your margins between images won't be consistent for the differently sized images but it'll lay out much more nicely on the page.
This is an old post and the links are no longer valid but because it came up early in a search I was doing I thought I should comment to help others understand the problem better.
By using float you are asking the browser to arrange your controls automatically. It responds by wrapping when the controls don't fit the width for their specified float arrangement. float:left, float:right or clear:left,clear:right,clear:both.
So if you want to force a bunch of float:left items to float uniformly into one left column then you need to make the browser decide to wrap/unwrap them at the same width. Because you don't want to do any scripting you can wrap all of the controls you want to float together in a single div. You would want to add a new wrapping div with a class like:
.LeftImages{
float:left;
}
html
<div class="LeftImages">
<img...>
<img...>
</div>
This div will automatically adjust to the width of the largest image and all the images will be floated left with the div all the time (no wrapping).
If you still want them to wrap you can give the div a width like width:30% and each of the images the float:left; style. Rather than adjust to the largest image it will vary in size and allow the contained images to wrap.
Add to .icons div {width:160px; height:130px;} will work out very nicely
Hope it will help