I'm trying to put 2 sections beside each other using inline-block and widths as a percentage, but it's not filling up the entire width of my window.
What I have so far:
HTML
<section class="left-content">
"Some Code"
</section>
<section class="main-content">
"Some More Code"
</section>
CSS
.left-content, .right-content {
width: 15%;
min-width: 150px;
padding: 5px;
display: inline-block;
overflow: hidden;
vertical-align: top;
}
.main-content {
width: 85%;
min-width: 712px;
padding: 10px;
display: inline-block;
overflow: hidden;
vertical-align: top;
}
But unless I work out the exact percentage down to a decimal point on my screen it doesn't work. Does anyone know of a way to do this using inline-block or do I have to use float?
It is due to the white-space and line break in your HTML markup which causes this issue. There are two options to resolve the "problem":
1. remove the line breaks and white-space from your code
2. set the font-size of the parent element to '0'
Additionally have you set box-sizing: border-box?
Related
Trying layout inline elements I discover wierd behavior.
Can someone explain me why is there any different?
To both HTML I apply this css:
.time {
position: relative;
top:100px;
height: 5px;
background: red;
border-radius:5px;
text-align: justify;
font-size: 0.1px;
padding: 0px 10px;
}
.time > .snapshot {
position: relative;
display: inline-block;
width:2px;
height: 13px;
top: -5px;
background: red;
}
.time:after {
content:'';
width: 100%;
display: inline-block;
}
And now HTML
- Wierd behavior:
<div class="time" >
<div class="snapshot" ></div><div class="snapshot" ></div>
</div>
http://jsfiddle.net/FSLAJ/
Expect behavior:
http://jsfiddle.net/dXwjR/1/
Update
I play a little with inline-block and justify, and I have another wierd example:
<div style="text-align: justify;">
test test test
<div style="display: inline-block; width: 100%;">test test</div>
test test test
</div>
JSFiddle example
I just wonder why second anonymous inline element is not justify?
The difference is due to the fact that inline elements are sensitive to white space in the code, and that's what's providing the spacing in your "expected" example. Add some margin-right to your .snapshot tick marks in your other one and they'll spread out like the other example.
jsFiddle example
I'm working some css and encountered a weird problem. Two elements are inline-block staying in the same container. Both of them have the width, height, and line-height.
But if we set the first element an empty content, the layout will be disordered (vertical alignment).
You can see the problem here
<div class="part">
<div class="foo"></div>
<div class="bar">bar</div>
</div>
.part {
width: 400px;
height: 80px;
background-color: #ddd;
margin-bottom: 100px;
}
.foo {
display: inline-block;
width: 100px;
height: 80px;
line-height: 80px;
background-color: red;
}
.bar {
display: inline-block;
width: 100px;
line-height: 80px;
height: 80px;
background-color: green;
}
I know empty content is always a bad smell of html code. But I just want to know why this is and how to solve this problem.
I found a similar question. People say we could use a   instead of empty content. Is this the only way we could solve it? Or we have other better solution?
Thanks.
use 'vertical-align: middle;' to the inline-block element
vertical-align: middle;
http://jsbin.com/ajexab/1/edit
At my site on the first page i have two images put together so it looks like a sunset. I want to my logo to go down between them as if it was the sun, but i cant make this happend. The logo is currently at the second page of the site
Heres i the html:
<div id="intro">
<div id="introbaggrundbagved"></div>
<a name="section1" class="section">SECTION 1</a>
<div id="logo">
</div>
</div> <!--#intro-->
And the css:
#intro{
background: url('images/introforan.png') no-repeat center;
height: 900px;
margin: 0;
position: relative;
z-index: 3;
}
#introbaggrundbagved{
background: url('images/introbagved.png') no-repeat center;
height: 900px;
width: 1440;
margin:0;
position: relative;
}
#logo{
background: transparent url('images/logo.png') no-repeat center;
width: 600px;
height: 600px;
position: relative;
margin-left: 420px;
margin-top: 100px;
z-index: 2;
}
You need to take the #logo div out of its parent element #introand give it a z-index that is larger than both of its siblings— then wrap all of the header elements into an #intro-wrapper div. In addition, I would then position the #logo element using position: absolute, instead of relative, this will give you more granular control on it's placement without disturbing the document flow of the surrounding elements.
Also, it appears that you have the function parallaxScroll updating the top property of #logo, which will prevent the element from being placed between your two images.
function parallaxScroll(){
var scrolledY = $(window).scrollTop();
$('#logo').css('top','+'+((scrolledY*.376))+'px');
....
}
As you can see in the following Fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/EvWc4/3/, I'm currently searching a way to align the second link (link-alt) to the right side of its parent (p).
Why not using float or position:absolute you'll say, well the main reason is that I like the fact that the links' display (inline-block) property allow them to be verticaly aligned in a naturally kind of way.
By using float or position:absolute; I'll be forced to calculate and put some extra margin-top or top value to vertically aligned the links.
Here is the code but better see the Fiddle http://jsfiddle.net/EvWc4/3/ :
<p>
link
link alt
</p>
p {
padding: 20px;
background: #eee;
}
.link {
display: inline-block;
padding: 10px;
background: #ddd;
}
.link-alt { padding: 20px; }
To do this with CSS3 you can use the flex box model
HTML:
<div class="content">
<div class="box box1"><a>Link 1</a></div>
<div class="box box2"></div>
<div class="box box3"><a>Link 2</a></div>
</div>
CSS:
.content {
display: box;
box-orient: horizontal;
box-pack: center;
box-align: center;
}
.box2 {
box-flex: 1;
}
(needs vendor prefixes)
http://jsfiddle.net/EvWc4/18/
CSS3 flex and grid items are supposed to address these issues, but standard support remains spotty as of 2013.
Back to the real world. I don't think it is possible to do this purely in CSS2.1 (IE8+) without pixel hacks. The thing is, text alignment is controlled by the parent element, and since the two anchors share their parent, they either both align to the left or to the right. And justify doesn't work on the last line.
If you can suffer a little additional HTML, there are two approaches:
1) Add another inline that is guaranteed to wrap the line, and then try to hide the empty line. This allows you to use text-align justify on the parent.
<p>
link
link alt
<span class="boom"></span>
</p>
<style type="text/css">
p {
padding: 20px;
background: #eee;
text-align: justify
}
.link {
display: inline-block;
padding: 10px;
background: #ddd;
}
.link-alt {
padding: 20px;
}
span {
display: inline-block;
height: 0;
width: 100%
}
</style>
Pros: works on any number of inline blocks, not just two. Only a little extra HTML required.
Cons: takes extra effort to hide the last (empty) line of text (setting the inline block inside of it to 0 height won't help you), and you're going to have to fiddle with margins or something else to make it really work. Further discussion: How do I *really* justify a horizontal menu in HTML+CSS?
2) Add another layer of inline blocks on top of your anchor tags and size them to 50%. Then you can apply separate text-align to get the final layout you requested. It is important that no whitespace is allowed between two inline blocks sized to 50%, or you'll wrap the line.
<p>
<span class="left">
link
</span><span class="right">
link alt
</span>
</p>
<style type="text/css">
p {
padding: 20px;
background: #eee;
}
.link {
display: inline-block;
padding: 10px;
background: #ddd;
}
.link-alt {
padding: 20px;
}
span {
display: inline-block;
width: 50%
}
.left {
text-align: left
}
.right {
text-align: right
}
</style>
Pros: produces the exact layout you requested without polluting the outer box model.
Cons: only works for two inline blocks (you can try to extend it, but it quickly gets really complicated). Relies on having no extra whitespace, which could jeopardize your nicely formatted markup.
You could set the position to absolute and use right: 0
.wrapper {
position: relative;
}
.right {
position: absolute;
right: 0;
}
http://jsfiddle.net/EvWc4/13/
I believe this accomplishes what you're looking for:
.link-alt {
position: absolute;
right: 0; top: 0; bottom: 0;
margin: auto;
max-height: 1em;
}
You can use position: absolute and right: 0 to obtain the right alignment. To keep the vertical centering, you can use top: 0; bottom: 0; margin: auto;. Of course, you'll also need to set a height on the element, or it will stretch to the full height of its parent.
Here's a jfiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/pHppA/
I've updated Pethas example, so it can be done in pure CSS2. It doesn't work in IE7, as it doesn't support display: table-cell; which I use.
http://jsfiddle.net/EvWc4/133/
The attribute float has no bearing on the element's vertical positioning.
p{padding:20px;background:#eee;overflow:auto;}
.link-alt{padding:20px; float:right}
should accomplish what you're looking for. Setting the overflow of the parent to something besides it's default (visible) will force it to treat floating children like normal elements.
Reference article
I haven't tested this at all outside of Chrome, so it might suck for IE.
This simple (and limited) solution leverages text-align: right and width: 50% on the aligned children, and white-space: nowrap on the parent to achieve the desired result.
Example: http://jsfiddle.net/erikjung/ejcJZ/
.vertically-centered-module {
white-space: nowrap;
}
.vertically-centered-module > * {
display: inline-block;
vertical-align: middle;
width: 50%;
}
.vertically-centered-module > :last-child {
text-align: right;
}
I'm doing some tests on a website using Wordpress as a CMS. In the example below the top left of the page has an "S" graphic outside of the main content area, clipped accordingly depending on the browser width. I would like to do something similar with an "L" graphic to the right in the footer.
The page width is set to 960px, and I've made the footer container DIV 1088px so that the "L" appears outside the content area. The trouble is this makes a scrollbar appear when it exceeds the current width of the browser.
I've tried overflow:hidden on the footer container DIV but this doesn't seem to work. I've also tried overflow:hidden on the BODY element and this works ok in IE, but not in other browsers.
Example: http://unclemort.com/wp/
I really hope there is away to do this, any help gratefully received.
I was trying to figure this out myself today and stumbled upon the answer.
What you need is a surrounding element around everything that has this:
#wrapper {
min-width: 600px; //whatever width you want
overflow-x: hidden;
}
Your main content should have that same width, and the things that need to jut out should have a negative margin.
Here's a complete example:
HTML:
<div id="outer">
<div id="container">
<div class="row">
<div class="inner">Hello World</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
CSS:
#outer {
min-width: 300px;
overflow-x: hidden;
}
#container {
width: 300px;
margin: 0px auto;
background: gray;
height: 500px;
}
.row {
width: 350px;
background: blue;
margin-left: -25px;
}
.inner {
background: yellow;
margin-left: 25px;
width: 300px;
height: 100px;
}
#media screen and (min-width: 301px) {
body {
//overflow-x: hidden;
}
}
jsfiddle:
http://jsfiddle.net/aaronjensen/9szhN/
Try in style.css, line 65, adding:
#footer-container {
border: none;
overflow: hidden;
}
Explanation:
#footer-container #footer {
background: #f5e8f7 url('images/slobraico-footer-pink-full.gif') no-repeat top left;
width: 1088px;
height: 217px;
overflow: hidden;
}
The scrollbar you're hiding is effectively not there.
The scrollbar you're seing is another one.
The problem is that the footer is 1088px wide, and that's causing a scrollbar to appear.
As long as the footer has fixed width and it's parent doesn't have overflow: hidden, you'll get a scroll if there's not enough width for the footer to fit.
Same goes for any other container.