Confusion about negative margin of float none and float left elements - html

I feel like CSS is much harder and confusing than C++ therefore I have few questions.
Consider following html body
<div id="mydiv1">12345~~~~~~~~/</div><div id="mydiv2">+_______67890</div>
And CSS
#mydiv1 {
float: left;
background-color: red;
margin-right: -30px;
}
#mydiv2 {
float: left;
background-color: blue;
}
which looks like this (in my latest Chrome)
which makes sense to me because second div is floating and it floats over first div.
On the other hand if I remove float property from mydiv2 only content moves but background box stays in the same place.
1) Could you please explain why ?
Now I'll remove margin and float, and add width to both divs making having CSS
#mydiv1 {
background-color: red;
width: 220px;
}
#mydiv2 {
background-color: blue;
width: 240px;
}
It will expectantly look like this
But if I add float: left to #mydiv1 it suddenly looks like this
2) Why did second div become twice as high ? I checked it by setting z-index of first div to -1.
PS. I've done tutorials on CodeAcademy and read float/margin-related articles on smashingmagazine.com. Sadly it didn't made everything crystal clear. If you guys can suggest online resources or book that would have explained these questions to me I'll appreciate it a lot.

<div> is a block-level element so it naturally fills the width of the container it's in. It makes its neighboring elements go above/below it, but not beside it.
Now, when you apply float to a block-level element, it no longer fills the width of the container, its width will be that of its contents. It also loses the ability to force its neighbors to go above/below it.
Note:The tricky bit is that the container holding the floated elements will not have a proper height because the floated elements are no longer part of the regular flow of content. (Here's how to get around it: http://www.quirksmode.org/css/clearing.html)
Regarding the last part of your question, if a floated element, eg. #mydiv1, is beside a block-level, eg. #mydiv2, then the block-level element wraps or flows around the floated element. It's one of the ways people can get text to wrap around an image in a news article.

When you remove the float from div2 it goes behind the floated div1, because floated elements does not take any height from it's content. You can say it's going out of the vertical flow of elements. However, it still take horizontal space from content. So the result is as expected here, once you "know the rules".
This should also explain the double height in your other example.
Here is a great article from css-tricks.com
I hope that helps!

If we don't give either float or width to any block level element like div then it occupies the entire width of the container.
Instead of float you can give some width and display: inline-block. This display property will display content inline and behaves like a block level element.

Related

Why does inline-block automatically adjust its width according to it's child's width?

Please correct me if this question has already been stated on stackoverflow! I apologize dearly if it has but I've been looking for a while and have only found hows not whys.
My question is this: Parent divs seem to automatically take up the full width of the page unless { display: inline-block; }is specified for it. When it is specified, it then adjusts it's width according to the width of it's child element. This really comes in handy, but I feel that it's important for me to know why this is happening. Here is some code for visual representation. Thanks in advance!
Edit: I see that some people have marked my question as a duplicate, but please show me where in the other question it explains why display inline-block automatically adjusts to it's children's height and width. Thank you!
#wrapper {
border: 1px solid black;
display: inline-block;
}
#child_div {
height: 100px;
width: 100px;
border: 1px solid black;
margin: 10px;
}
<div id="wrapper">
<div id="child_div"></div>
</div>
display: inline-block is basically a sweet-spot between display: inline; (which is default for span, strong, em, etc.) and display: block; (which is default for div, p, etc).
Inline elements are built for text and thus they should flow inline with the text, and only be as wide as the text they contain. Thus, you can't set the width of an inline element.
Block elements are made to fill all the available width by default and are thus on their own line rather than flowing inline. This is good for things like paragraphs, but sometimes you want shorter lines so it is possible to adjust the width for block elements.
Inline-block elements are in the middle. They flow inline like display: inline; elements, but you can set the width like display: block; elements.
The reason an inline-block defaults to a shrink-to-fit width is because if it didn't, then you wouldn't be able to place more than one inline-block on the same line, because every inline-block would then insist on occupying the entire width of its line box, leaving no room for any other inline-level boxes and thereby defeating the purpose of having an inline-level block container box (which is how "inline-block" is defined in the spec).
The reason a block box defaults to filling its containing block horizontally is because block boxes are stacked vertically in normal flow, with inline content flowing within inline formatting contexts established by them. There needs to be room for this inline content to flow, and room is provided by having block boxes fill their containing block horizontally.
See also:
What is the difference between block and inline-block with width: 100%?
Why doesn't "margin: auto" center an element vertically?
The default value for width and height is auto that is calculated by
the browser.
In your case width of the wrapper div is not specified( taken as auto) and it is display: inline-block( height/width can be set) so its width is calculated by the browser with respect to its child element's width(child_div).
I would say there is a W3C specification for the property display:
Here some documentation from MDN:
https://developer.mozilla.org/de/docs/Web/CSS/display
Here is the W3C specification:
https://www.w3.org/TR/css-display-3/
And to answer your: Why?
There is a layout engine behind the CSS written in C++ in the browser. Normally the elements don't behave like you know from CSS. The people from the browser need to say where to draw these elements and the lines and how the elements should behave, therefore all these properties like:
display: block | inline-block or
position: static | relative | absolute | static etc.
So the engine knows how to draw all the lines the user will finally see in the browser window.
Here are more details about this:
https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/visuren.html
I hope this was your question and I could help you to enlighten a little bit more about this.

Making a button element fill available width

There are a lot of "fill available space" questions on this site, but my issue is a bit particular in that I've already gotten a solution, but it doesn't work for buttons. I'd like to understand why this doesn't work for buttons, and how I can make it work. I imagine it's just some browser-style for the button element that I need to override.
I have two floating elements within a (fixed-width, if that matters) wrapping div. The right element has fixed width, and the left element should take up whatever width remains.
I can accomplish that by setting the right element to have fixed width and float: right, and leaving the left element without any special styling. This works perfectly for divs. It also works for spans, but only if I set display: block on them. For buttons, I can't get it to work at all. I tried block, inline-block, and every obscure width value I could find on the MDN.
http://jsfiddle.net/wjFbD/2/
I don't know why I didn't think of just wrapping the buttons in divs earlier. Here's what I've come up with:
http://jsfiddle.net/SkczB/2/
This involves the overflow: hidden box formatting context trick (which I suspected was going to make an appearance here, but couldn't quite see where to fit it in). Highlights:
The two buttons are wrapped in divs with class buttonWrapper.
Those divs are formatted according to the trick I outlined in the third paragraph, above. The right div has float: right and a fixed width, the left div has no special styling.
We now apply the box formatting context trick. The left div is given overflow: hidden, which causes it to make space for the right-floated div.
We can now apply a left margin to the right div, and change its width, and the left div will always be the right size.
The divs create the desired "fill available width" effect for us, now we just have to put the buttons inside the divs and give them a height and width of 100%.
If it's the left button you wanted to have a fixed width, then basically repeat the above steps with left and right swapped.
This may not be exactly what you're looking for here, but here's an option that seems to have worked out for me with your fiddle.
If you've got a fixed width div that the elements are contained in, you could split get the remaining width of the div after button A has been set to fill up, say, 100 pixels and then set button 2 to be the remaining size.
Alternatively, another option would be to run it as percentages 20%/80%, 30%/70%, that kind of thing. Here's a fiddle that achieves what you're looking for on just the button wrapper at the bottom. I've applied specific classes for it and added divs around each button for a bit more control. The button wrapper divs are set to 20% and 80% respectively, while the button is set to fill 100% of the containing space.
Here's the modified fiddle and the modfied HTML/CSS. Hope it helps for what you're looking for...
http://jsfiddle.net/wjFbD/7/
HTML
<div class="btnWrapper">
<div class="buttonWrapperB">
<button class="left">
button Left
</button>
</div>
<div class="buttonWrapperA">
<button class="right">
button Right
</button>
</div>
</div>​
CSS
.btnWrapper
{
width: 100%;
background-color: #FEE;
border: 2px solid black;
margin-bottom: 10px;
height: 50px;
}
.buttonWrapperB{
float: left;
width: 20%;
}
.buttonWrapperB button{
width: 100%;
height: 50px;
}
.buttonWrapperA{
float:left;
width: 80%;
}
.buttonWrapperA button{
width: 100%;
height: 50px;
}
​
I adjusted the background opacity of your .right elements to see what was going on below them. It looks like the .left elements are not only taking up the remaining space-- they're also taking up the entire row. Weirdly, the text inside these elements is centered as if it were only taking up the remaining space.
If you want the same to work for the buttons, it seems like the only solution involves a little hack. Buttons are quite complex indeed.
button.left {
margin: 0;
position: absolute; /*this seems to be the only way to get the button to stay on the same row - floating it left won't even work*/
z-index: -1; /*hides the "overflowing" part below the right button*/
width: 100%; /*make the button stretch to the full width of the row*/
padding-right: 400px; /*add a padding-right hack so that text will be centered correctly - should be same size as fixed width .right element*/
padding-left: 0;
display: block;
}
See updated fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/wjFbD/6/
starting with
One element has fixed width, and the other element should take up
whatever width remains.
here is my general solution:
<div class="container">
<div class="two">125 €</div>
<div class="one">my favorite provider</div>
</div>
(stylus syntax, in your mind just add {,},;)
.one // red
border none
height auto
overflow hidden
white-space nowrap
text-overflow ellipsis
.two // green
float left
white-space nowrap
text-overflow ellipsis
You can set the one green thing to a fixed width, but indeed, you do not even have to! Things full up nicely. And String get's truncated with an ellipsis, if it gets too long.
Things get a bit more complicated, when one of them is a <button> rather than a <div> (and I can't figure out, which style property differenciates them, so I would need to style away), but anyway, with a wrapper, that also works:
→ See full codepen here. (Feedback appreciated.)

Image goes beyond container div bounds

Can someone take a look at the following fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/R4bCy/1/
I thought that a div should adjust it's height in order to accommodate it's elements, unless the elements are positioned absolutely.
Why does the div not expand to the full height of the image?
I need to the image to be aligned to the right. The only ways that I know how to do this is align='right', position:absolute; right: 0; and float:right, all of which make the containing div not adjust it's height to the image height.
.intro {
margin: 10px;
outline: 1px solid #CCC;
background: #A00;
color: #FFF;
height:auto;
overflow:auto;
}
​.img{
float:right;
height:auto;
}​
<div class="intro">
<div class="img"> <img src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_74so2YIdYpM/TEd09Hqrm6I/AAAAAAAAApY/rwGCm5_Tawg/s1600/tall+copy.jpg" style="margin: 10px 10px; "/></div>
<p>Sorry, but the page you requested could not be found.</p>
</div>​​​​​​​​​​
DEMO
'Why does the div not expand to the full height of the image?'
Because floats will overlap with blocks, only block formatting contexts contain floats. (You can find a pretty good overview of the whole topic here: http://www.yuiblog.com/blog/2010/05/19/css-101-block-formatting-contexts/ )
On to solve the problem at hand:
The align=right will actually result in the img being float: right (the align attribute is deprecated and css should be used).
To contain the floated image in its parent div you need either have the parent div establish a block formatting context (block formatting contexts enclose nested floats) or explicitly clear the float with an additional element after the img that is styled as a clear: right.
An easy solution to create a block formatting context is to float the parent div as well, although my preferred solution in this case would be to simply set its overflow to hidden (also resulting in a block formatting context).
Check out the updated fiddle http://jsfiddle.net/R4bCy/8/.
What you need to do is add after the p tag,
<div style="clear:both;"></div>
Whoops, apologies, posted and you edited your question - the align right is floating it I believe (you should instead use float:right and a clearfix of some sort).
example: http://jsfiddle.net/R4bCy/5/
This is what I believe you want:
http://jsfiddle.net/R4bCy/6/
If you wanted the text on the left and the image floated to the right, please do this is your CSS:
http://jsfiddle.net/R4bCy/15/
You can also have two divs that have a width of 50% contained within a container div. This will allow you a little more flexibility in your placement of the image because the text and image will each have their own modifiable divs with independent attributes

Body doesn't expand to include relatively positioned element

I am trying to design a relatively positioned div, which in turn would consist two divs. None of the child divs have a fixed height, but they vary with the content, so the parent div expands with the taller of the child div. Now the design works fine, but when I was analyzing the code with Firebug, I saw that on hovering over the body tag in Firebug, only a short portion of the entire screen at the very top showed as the body. The side-panel confirmed it, the width of the body is ok, but the height is 0. That means the height of the parent div is 0, but Firebug tells me it is not, it is some 560px. How is it possible? I know elements don't expand with their content if the content is absolutely positioned, but here the child divs are relatively positioned, so why doesn't the parent expand with its contents? The fiddle is at http://jsfiddle.net/Cupidvogel/y79NS/6/. Th screenshot (please zoom to understand my point! It is when I try the code as a complete HTML page in Firefox):
In your CSS, div.clear - which you are using to attempt to clear your floats - is itself floated left. That means that it is not part of the document flow either and therefore cannot clear anything.
Removing float does the trick:
.clear { width: 400px; clear: both; position: relative; }
Alternately, if you want div.clear to be floated for some reason, there are a wide variety of other ways to clear your floats.
EDIT: div.main has a height of 520px because it is floated and floated elements "snap" to the dimensions of their children. If you floated body left (please don't; it's not a good idea), it too will "snap" to its children's dimensions and have a set height of 520px.
What here happens is normal browser behavior, you float divs, so there are not in the 'normal' flow anymore because of the float property.
So body is height 0, because body can not calculate height of elements that 'not in there'.
Move you div class="clear" out of the div class="main" and remove the float property aswell on the div class="clear", problem solved.
view: http://jsfiddle.net/y79NS/8/

When should floated HTML elements be cleared exactly?

Could anyone explain when should the floated elements get cleared?
I have noticed sometimes when I make something in HTML, and I don't clear them, it still all looks good!
Also can overflow:hidden be used as a replacement for clearing?
Look at this example:
<html>
<head>
<style>
.a { background-color: red; overflow: hidden }
.floated-left { float: left; width: 100px; height: 100px; background-color: blue; }
</style>
</head>
<body>
<p>div with class a, that does have overflow:hidden:</p>
<div class="a">
<div class="floated-left">Hi,</div>
<div class="floated-left">Mom!</div>
</div>
<p>i didn't clear anything</p>
</body>
</html>
Here I didn't clear the floated divs, but set overflow:hidden for the .a class and the <p> below appeared in normal element flow.
However, if I removed overflow:hidden from the .a class, <p> gets displaced.
Please explain!
Thanks, Boda Cydo.
For block-level, non-replaced elements, when overflow isn't set to "visible" and height isn't "auto", the element's height depends on its descendents (CSS 2.1 § 10.6.6). Thus when you set overflow: hidden on .a, it stretches to contain the floated descendents. The <p> is below .a, so it's below the floats.
Without overflow: hidden, .a doesn't contain the floated children; its calculated height is 0. The <p> is still below .a, but not the floats. The floats push the inline content of <p>, as floats are wont to do.
Try putting borders around .a and paragraphs to more clearly see the difference.
overflow: hidden should be used as a replacement for clearing divs whenever it can be, which is most of the time.
IF you need to float the elements around an tire block as unit and the containing element needs to expand vertically to the height of whichever is highest. Otherwise the text/inline elements of the non-floated adjacent elements will flow around the float. If this content ends up being taller than your float then youll be ok... the container will expand. If however the floated elemnt is taller, then youll need to clear it if you want the container to be as tall as the float.
Just as I replied in your other post When should overflow:hidden be used for a <div>? this is because the child elements of the a div throw the margins out of bound for a when overflow is anything other than visible. When overflow is visible, a technically stops at the boundary of the div for "Mom!". When it is other than visible (overflow, scroll, auto), the boundary continues until it reaches the boundary of its own parent (in this case the right edge of the browser). The new block element may not begin until it has space to go in. Effective when overflow is visible, it may begin directly after the margin boundary of the last floated div. When it is other, it must wait for a full break in the div.