I have a page with many different objects of different widths. I am not setting the width of the div that the objects are within as I want it to be able to expand to include whatever items are within it. But I do want the div to have a minimum width. Is it possible to do this?
It is very possible. Just use CSS min-width. The MDN page has details.
Use CSS:
min-width
Definition and Usage
The min-width property sets the minimum width of an element. Note: The
min-width property does not include
padding, borders, or margins!
like
#example {
width: 150px;
min-width: 100px;
max-width: 200px;
}
Checkout some real documentation regarding this, Mozilla Developer Network.
this is achievable via css;
element
{
min-width:100px;
}
Related
I have an image tag that I managed to align nicely to the rest of the divs in one section. However, as I resize the window, the image starts shrinking or expanding. What could I do in CSS to prevent this from happening?
.img-test {
width: 33.87%;
position: absolute;
max-width: none;
}
.clothes {
background-color: #d04925;
float: right;
height: 805px;
}
The image and the div with the .clothes class are one next to the other and it should stay that way.
You can use the max-width, min-width, max-height, min-height attributes to prevent the image from resizing. Here's a link with more information. w3schools
Hello and welcome to StackOverflow!
You set your image to a percentage value, or in other words to a fraction of the parent container. So if the parent container shrinks, the fraction of it gets smaller and the image shrinks, too! Now there are ways to prevent this, you could set a min-width, which defines a minimum width for your image. So it will shrink to this width, but it won't shrink below.
.img-test {
width: 33.87%;
min-width: 300px;
}
In this example, your image would never be smaller than 300px. You could also omit the min-width Attribute, and set a fixed width directly. But since you mentioned, that you managed to make it „look nicely“, this will propably wreck your whole UI, if the viewport of the browser is too small.
So I would recommend to consider rethinking your layout, if it only works with some specific widths. One way to do this are media queries. You define breakpoints in your CSS, and if the viewport gets smaller (or bigger), different CSS rules apply. You can read more about this here and here.
Just a small off-topic addition: The default value of max-width is none and it is not inherited, so there is no reason to set it to this value.
You need height attribute to be set to some value to prevent image from resizing. Example
.img-test{
height: 200px;
position: absolute;
min-width: 300px;
width: 33.87%;
}
This will help. Unless the image is inside a div whose height is changing.
Setting max-width style value for images inside carousel breaks width of the container. This happens even though max-width value would not affect actual width of the images. I cannot figure out why this happens.
I created a JSFiddle about this because I'm unable to explain this issue otherwise: https://jsfiddle.net/atmp9ymr/1/
So I'm basically asking why this happens? Is there a way to fix this? Any help would be appreciated.
--
Edit. I try to explain the issue here:
So I have images inline within a container. Container forces items to be inline by using white-space: nowrap and images have inline-block and display style. This container does have position set to absolute if that matters. Everything is fine currently. Container which holds images has correct width (according to images inside). Now if I set max-width: 100% for images, container width is broken. Even if image size does not change, width is not anymore correct. I cannot find a logic for that.
Please check the jsfiddle for better explanation.
Max-Width of the images relates to the containing element.
So max-width: 100% on the image means "use 100% of ".item". .item is not further restricted and by using position:absolute on #inner, you have set this element to 100% (of viewport).
Try adding "border: 1px solid red" to #inner and #container to see, where the elements are drawn.
As long as there is not speciefied what has to happen, wenn sizes exeed the container, this will happen.
Firefox, Opera and Chrome have a workaround for this.
#inner {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
display: flex; /* add display flex */
}
.item {
display: block;
vertical-align: top;
width: -moz-max-content; /* this will stretch the items to maximum width */
width: -webkit-max-content; /* this will stretch the items to maximum width */
width: max-content; /* for future */
}
Have a look at this jsfiddle.
The challenge here is the mixing of percentage widths with inferred (auto) widths, and combining this with absolute positioning.
max-width:100% means the browser has to translate a percentage value into something absolute. This may yield unexpected results if ancestors have width:auto (which by the way is the default), and are absolutely positioned.
In such cases, percentage values make little sense, and 100% might just as well be interpreted as 100% of the element itself – not 100% of the parent/ancestor.
If you want to use percentage values here, you should make sure that the ancestors' widths are clearly set (to something other than auto). However, this might prevent the #inner wrapper from dynamically adjusting its width to wrap all its .item children.
In the end, the easy/ugly solution may be the best: Set the max-width to an absolute value. (For example the pixel width of #container.)
PS: I created a variation of your case. Maybe you'll find it useful.
I'm trying to build a simple layout with fluid values (percentages for height and width). I got a container and a wrapper, but for whatever reason, I can't seem to change the width and height values of the wrapper.
I got a wrapper with the following values:
div.wrapper{
height: 80%;
width: auto;
margin-left: auto;
margin-right: auto;
overflow: hidden;
}
As well as a container with the same code but wider. When I remove the overflow: hidden-value, the wrapper will just becomes really thin and not actually "wrap" around any of the internal elements.
Since this is a kind of complicated problem, I posted my entire layout on JSBin:
http://jsbin.com/folaveda/1/
The problem is apparent there as well, as well as all the css that causes it.
You need to set the height property on the container, then you can set the child .wrapper to consume a percentage of its parent's element. Percentage heights and widths are relative to their immediate parent element's dimensions. In your scenario, the parent element is only consuming the dimensions of its children's contents, thus your perceived issue. Adjust the dimensions of the parent/s and you'll have your solution.
note, you'll likely need to set the dimensions on the body and html element explicitly to something like 100%, or a value that's more appropriate for your scenario.
I have a div element with style attached:
.mypost {
border: 1px solid Peru;
font-family: arial;
margin: auto;
min-width: 700px;
width: 700px;
}
I am diplaying WordPress post contents inside the DIV block but for simplicity let assume that there is only one <img> inside the DIV. I want my div to be minimum 700 px wide and adjust the width if image is wider than 700 px.
What are my options to achieve that? Please advice.
UPDATE
See my Fiddle
http://jsfiddle.net/cpt_comic/4qjXv/
One way you can achieve this is setting display: inline-block; on the div. It is by default a block element, which will always fill the width it can fill (unless specifying width of course).
inline-block's only downside is that IE only supports it correctly from version 8. IE 6-7 only allows setting it on naturally inline elements, but there are hacks to solve this problem.
There are other options you have, you can either float it, or set position: absolute on it, but these also have other effects on layout, you need to decide which one fits your situation better.
inline-block jsFiddle Demo
I'd like to add to the other answers this pretty new solution:
If you don't want the element to become inline-block, you can do this:
.parent{
width: min-content;
}
The support is increasing fast, so when edge decides to implement it, it will be really great: http://caniuse.com/#search=intrinsic
You could try using float:left; or display:inline-block;.
Both of these will change the element's behaviour from defaulting to 100% width to defaulting to the natural width of its contents.
However, note that they'll also both have an impact on the layout of the surrounding elements as well. I would suggest that inline-block will have less of an impact though, so probably best to try that first.
EDIT2- Yea auto fills the DOM SOZ!
#img_box{
width:90%;
height:90%;
min-width: 400px;
min-height: 400px;
}
check out this fiddle
http://jsfiddle.net/ppumkin/4qjXv/2/
http://jsfiddle.net/ppumkin/4qjXv/3/
and this page
http://www.webmasterworld.com/css/3828593.htm
Removed original answer because it was wrong.
The width is ok- but the height resets to 0
so
min-height: 400px;
I want to create a div that able to expand the width when user input the text
I tried to set
width:100%;
max-width:600px;
min-width:300px;
But some how this div just stay at 600px, is that any way to keep the width stay at 300px and able to expand to 600px base on the length of the content?
Really appreciate if you can help. Thanks
Setting the div to display: inline-block allows it to shift width depending on the contents.
Otherwise, as a block level element, the div will take up 100% of it's containing element (or however wide you set max-width).
Here's a an example:
http://cssdesk.com/Bwp8E
Try:
width: auto;
max-width: 600px;
min-width: 300px;
I just update the "min-width" page on MDN with this information:
In some browsers, on iOS, a <button> element in its native (default) configuration will not respond to min-width. This problem is due to native buttons. A <span> inside a native button will exhibit the same problem, despite having display:inline-block set. When changes are made to other style parameters and the browser is forced to abandon the native button, the min-width setting takes affect.
Make sure that the div or space your working on isn't: position:fixed;
It needs to be something like: position: relative; or position:absolute;