Shrink wrap a "max-sized" image - html

Setting max-width and max-height to 100% for an image does what's intended and scales the image to fit it's container with aspect-ratio intact. However, I need to achieve the same thing but with an extra container kept tight around the image (to be able to position other stuff relative to the image).
I'm looking for non-JS solutions and mark-up semantics is not an issue since this is for an app. (tables would be ok). Also image dimensions can be considered known.
Another way to describe what I want: Make an image always fit inside the body and display a border around it (not using the trivial solution of putting a border on the image itself)
Here is a fiddle showing the problem. I gave the image an 0.5 opacity to make the yellow container show through. The objective is to have the container always the same size as the image. Ie. the image will always have a yellow tint but no other yellow areas should be visible. Note: I'm not trying to achieve any coloring effects it's just an illustration of the problem.

Try this one, http://jsfiddle.net/xmarcos/K4dHr/
Update: http://jsfiddle.net/xmarcos/K4dHr/4/

Here, this seems to work: http://jsfiddle.net/Wexcode/vzc4m/1/
You don't need to have a max-height around your <div> because it will stretch to the dimensions of its inner elements if you set it as display: inline-block. Forcing the <img> to have display: block will ensure that there isn't any extra space added around element inside container, unless you specify it (using margin).

Related

Autoscrolling text animation in CSS not going all the way

I'm trying to scroll some single-line labels in a single-line fixed-width container.
What I've tried so far is:
Create a container with fixed dimensions.
Place a scrollable container inside and attach the animation.
Place the labels.
The animation partially works, but the scrolling doesn't go all the way to what is configured (translateX(-100%)).
The overflowing part (green color in codepen) that exceeds the fixed container width is ignored.
I've tried various display and flex field combinations, but noting.
Here is a codepen sample.
https://codepen.io/efthymiosks/pen/QWQGVGg
The issue is that 100% is the size of the element, not the content. What I mean by this is because the content overflows the element, 100% only refers to the visible width of the container.
You need to change 100% to something else such as 150%. Unfortunately, this means that you need to know the width of the contents before. The only other way that I know of is using JavaScript to calculate the width of the contents.
Codepen

Negative margin limit with images

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?

Scaling divs and content to fit

I am building a module to display html divs(pages) which are designed to in a later stage be printed out as A4s. The area where these divs are displayed is however to small to display the full width of the divs and thus the pages and their content need to be scaled down to fit within the display-area at hand.
The children of the a4-pages are styled with both set widths/heights and percentages so it would be a nice approach to use the CSS3 Tranform scale to scale the pages down just enough so that they can be displayed but this becomes problematic since the scale is done after rendering and thus creates an white area around the pages.
I'm using jquery to rescale the pages when window is resized and will also implement this when page is loaded.
How do i scale several divs within a common wrapper and also readjust the parent so that the scaled div is showed without any padding around it?
Edit: I've put together a simple fiddle displaying the issue http://jsfiddle.net/96jkU/
#toBeScaled should display over the full width of #displayArea but still be scaled to 0.5
If I understand the question correctly, you want the scaled div to sit in the top left corner of the parent div.
In that case, the problem is that the transform origin is set to 50% 50% by default. This is good for rotations (you typically want to rotate something around its center) but not really for scaling; your div gets shrunk down to the center of where it would originally be.
Solution: all you need to do is add
transform-origin:0 0;
(with the proper prefixes) to the style for #toBeScaled.
See updated fiddle.

3 vertical background images appear as one image with content in center image. Center image "cuts off" and does not match footer image

jsfiddle link: http://jsfiddle.net/djDWF/84/
The problem is, the inner container (text-padding) margin/width for the text/images is affecting the center background image. The repeated image that touches the footer does not extend to full height, and cuts off so the center and footer images do not match up (it is kind of hard to tell, but if you add or remove text in my jfiddle example you can see the center image change where it meets the footer.).
This is for a school project, and though I did not need to actually do this type of image background, I got this far so might as well continue. I don't want to use javaScript if possible because that is not part of the course yet.
I tried removing the text wrapper and styling each p tag individually but the same effect occurs.
I also tried mathematical combinations using line-height and margins. If I set the line-height to equal the right and bottom margins, and the left margin to equal the height of the footer then the effect works, but because my footer image is so large this is not a workable solution.
Mathematically I tried to keep the same ratios with the footer height but this did not work either (or else I did this wrong. I tried dividing each by the same amount.)
Is there any way to do this using only CSS and and not having to resort to tables?
So in short the problem is: You can see a line showing up at the footer separation because the repeated centre background isn't fully showing it's last repeat as the container isn't big enough.
The solution: If it doesn't need to be variable and you know how much content you will be putting in you can just set a height: Live example - http://jsfiddle.net/djDWF/85.
div#background-center{
background:url(http://i.imgur.com/gsNFa.png) repeat-y;
float:left;
width:700px;
height: 1604px; /* add this */
}
Obviously, pick whatever height is right to fit your final text.
With your current images there is no way to do this automatically without using JavaScript.

CSS - make div's inherit a height

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.