If I put a simple iframe within a DIV any DIV's below it do not show up, the page stops there. If I just type some text with no iframe, it works fine—so it is the adding of the iframe that causes it.
The file loaded by the iframe is dummied right down and just displays the word TEST.
Before I start posting a lot of code and stuff, is this generally an issue—can an iframe be used within a DIV statement?
Thanks
Sounds like you're making a pretty common coding error: you can't short-tag an iframe. For instance:
<iframe src=" ... " />
is invalid. You must provide a full closing element:
<iframe src=" ... "></iframe>
It's silly, but it can cause your page to completely gum up. Also, check to make sure your quotes/apostrophes/carets are all proper, as those can cause similar problems.
Hope this helps!
There's no reason you can't wrap an Iframe in a DIV, but Iframes are notoriously difficult in layout and obviously we don't know what other styling rules might be affecting your box model.
You might try giving the containing DIV an 'overflow:scroll' or even just 'overflow:auto' in your CSS. This can help fix strange box model issues.
Related
I am just learning to code and have been looking everywhere for an answer on this one and for some reason cannot find anything.
I noticed that it seems to be common practice to put an image inside of a container or wrapper. For instance, rather just having:
<img src="url"/>
Everyone seems to be in agreement that it needs to be this way:
<div class="container">
<img=src"url"/>
</div>
What is the purpose of wrapping the img inside of a div in this way? It seems to have something to do with "responsive design", but I'm not 100% sure. Is it just so that we have something to size the image relative to, rather than using definite sizing like pixels on the image selector in css? The more I think about it as I write this, the more it seems to be the right answer, but I'm not sure if there's something else I'm missing on this one.
Any insight would be very much appreciated. Thank you.
unfortunately there is no "single" correct answer for this.
There can be many reasons as to why one would wrap any element in another element, it is not specific to <img /> tags :)
In your question I read something like this (converted to real world example):
I see that it is common practice to put a frame around a photo.
Where the "frame" would be the wrapper element, and the photo would be the <img />.
Looking at it this way might make it seem more clear. The photo is the most important part, technically speaking you don't need a frame to show the photo. If you have just a photo, you won't be able to hang it on your wall without damaging it by driving a nail through the top or applying some tape. If you have a frame though, you can make that photo take up any amount of available space within it, you can use the clip to hang it on a wall and if you put multiple photo's in the frame, you can move them all at once since they are in the same frame.
The reason most people put that image in a "container" is because they get some sort of advantage out of it over using an image alone, this could range from aspect-ratio locks to relative positioning. In some cases, a wrapper is required to achieve certain (notably more complex) animations as well.
Websites are built out of "logical" pieces that, together, form a website. The individual pieces are all "frames" that "flow" together to create any page layout you see on every website.
It is merely a structural way of thinking, if the purpose of that image was to be used as a background image for the entire page, a better alternative would be to use CSS background-image property on the <body> tag and not use the image at all. But if the image is meant to be part of a smaller part of your website, it should probably be contained as appropiate.
This answer is in no way a guide to go by, nor a ruleset or anything like that, they are just the thoughts of another developer. There are countless reasons for wrapping an element and this answer doesn't even cover 0.0000001% of those cases. I'm just saying -- there's no specific reason to do or don't here.
I need to hide a
</div>
without JavaScript or Jquery. I tried
<span style="display: none;"></div></span>
but it didn’t work at all.
Any help is much appreciated.
EDIT:
Thanks for confirming that it is NOT possible!
That’s what I wanted to know.
I solved my problem by changing my markup a little bit.
In my case it would have been logic because it simply would have saved some lines of code. (Basically I wanted to insert a div into another when a user activates an option, hiding just one closing tag and one new div opening tag when the option is disabled, showing them when the option is activated. It’s a tumblr theme with some closing tags rendered in {block:Posts} after every post. No need to get further in detail, i think it would be unnecessary complicated because the problem is already solved. Thanks!
I can think of absolutely no logical reason for doing this. even though a div tag may look like two elements to some, it is in fact one element and neither the starting nor the closing tag function on their own.
The fact that a
</div>
tag is being displayed suggests that you have an extra closing tag - there is no corresponding
<div>
opening tag. These tags should never be displayed on a page if implemented correctly.
Try looking through your code and checking every opening
<div>
has a corresponding
</div>
In html all tags must be in pairs, having one opening and one closing tag. e.g.
<div id "test">
Test text!
</div>
JP
The problem that i'm having is that I've specified some rollover buttons, and some div id's to control my image positions. however when i make a new div called Text and put some in, this also seems to trigger my rollover buttons? like its using code from the div above it, even though I've used the <div> tags:
http://jsfiddle.net/bq5MR/2/
Your example doesn't display the images.
You haven't closed your <a> tags which may result in the effect area being larger than you expect.
http://validator.w3.org/ - a free HTML validator which can help pinpoint invalid HTML and potential issues.
You're not closing your second 'a' tag. Try closing it and see if that fixes the problem.
I'm specifying a teal background color for the body of a page:
<body style="background-color: #0197B1">
This overrides a style sheet, and sure enough the teal appears, but not all the way down the page (both in Firefox and Chrome)
I add the following at the bottom:
<br style="clear:both" />
some text
</body>
to attempt to resolve things and also debug what is occurring with the inline element at the bottom. It appears (Chrome developer tool) that the body does not go all the way down the page. Hmm ... why does this happen, what's the fix?
Page can be viewed at: http://www.momentumnow.co/testimonials
Thanks
Remove the height: 100%; property on the body (it's set in the CSS) and the background will fill the entire page. Also, as a friendly note, you shouldn't be using tables to design websites. It's very poor practice - what you want to do is easily achievable without tables.
Remove html {background-color:#ffffff;} and you should be done.
When you float an element you are removing it from the document's flow. The page loses a sense of where and how large the element is.
You page is a series of nested tables with floated elements inside. The only thing providing actual vertical structure is the tables themselves. Your background is ended where the tables run out.
To recode this page would be easy for someone who was familiar with Standards-based, semantic markup. I would suggest learning those methods. In the meantime, #Christian Varga's solution will get you off for the time being.
I check Firefox only,
line 4: html{background-color:#ffffff; height:100% }
Just remove body
or
line 4: html,body{background-color:#0197B1; height:100% }
Ok so there's a site i've been asked to look at and I can't seem to figure out why it only looks bad in safari. It looks fine in every other browser so far and I can't figure it out. The problem takes place in the footer of the document. Here's the link... www.palettekids.com (I SWEAR IT'S NOT MY DESIGN :-))!!! Thanks!
It looks like you have an extra </div> somewhere if you look at the source in safari it is outside of the #container. But in Chrome it is inside. The container is what is holding everything else in. Double check all your closing div's and remove the extra one.
Fix your code errors, like the missing ending tags, like </div>, </body> and </html> among other errors; probably all missing from footer.php. See [Invalid] Markup Validation of palettekids.com - W3C Markup Validator. Scroll down in the validation report to see line numbers and source code.
I don't think coords are supported in Safari:
http://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_a_coords.asp
try using another method (margin perhaps)?