Is there a way I can change this select drop down to a custom select drop down with a down arrow instead of the default quill arrows?
You can select ql-picker-label, and makes its default icon (the double pointing arrow) which is enclosed within an svg hidden, by setting display: none. Then, since the text itself is enclosed within the ::before pseudo-element, you can set the background-image on the ql-picker-label itself. The code below should be self-explanatory. However, because the text is within ::before element, I could not find an easy way to make space between the icon and the text. Perhaps, you can edit the icon image, and manually insert space before it.
This sample code below will select all ql-picker-label elements, you can avoid this behavior by entering more specific selectors.
.ql-picker-label svg {
display: none;
}
.ql-picker-label{
display: inline-block;
background-image: url("data:image/svg+xml;utf8,<svg fill='black' height='24' viewBox='0 0 24 24' width='24' xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2000/svg'><path d='M7 10l5 5 5-5z'/><path d='M0 0h24v24H0z' fill='none'/></svg>");
background-repeat: no-repeat;
background-position: center right;
}
Related
the site : http://academie-igs.com/?lang=fr. Look at the menu (french first menu) it's called : "environment de travail". when hover on, the word wrap and go to another line...
I use firebug to check the style sheet, take screen capture that i check in Photoshop. I cannot see the problem... why it append?
I don't know what do that behavior. Can you point me where to look ?... it's a mystery for me right now !
The issue was with spacing.
Line 104 on superfish.css, replace with the following:
.sf-menu li li a:hover {padding:8px 5px 8px 17px; background:#353535; background:-moz-linear-gradient(center top , #4C4C4C, #313131) repeat scroll 0 0 transparent; color:#fff !important; outline:0; background: -webkit-gradient(linear, left top, left bottom, from(#4C4C4C), to(#313131));}
You had too much spacing on the right of it on hover on the padding property that was causing the text to wrap downward.
I'm trying to make a series of photos into square photos. They may be rectangular horizontally (i.e. 600x400) or vertically (400x600), but I want to get them to be 175x175 either way. My thought was to max-height or max-width the smaller side, and not allow overflow beyond 175px on the larger side...however, I'm having problems with it.
Is this possible with css?
Below is my attempt, but it giving rectangles still:
<div style="min-height:175px; overflow:hidden; max-height:175px;">
<img style="min-width:175px; overflow:hidden; max-height:175px;" src="/photo.png">
</div>
You can set the width/height of the parent div then set the child img tag to width:100%; height: auto;
That will scale the image down to try to fit the parent with aspect ratio in mind.
You can also set the image as a background-image on the div
Then if you can use css3 you can mess with the background-size property.
It's attributes are: contain, cover, or a specificed height (50%, 50%) (175px, 175px)
You could also try to center the picture with background-position
<div style="background-image:url(some.png); background-size: cover; background-position: 50%">
Here's an up to date and simple answer.
For instance, if you want a squared image inside of a container.
Let's say you want the image to take 100% of the container height and have a dynamic width equal to the height:
.container {
height: 500px; /* any fixed value for the parent */
}
.img {
width: auto;
height: 100%;
aspect-ratio: 1; /* will make width equal to height (500px container) */
object-fit: cover; /* use the one you need */
}
You can switch width and height values (container & image) if you want to base the 100% on the container's width and have a computed height equal to the width.
You can use object-fit, which is widely supported in all major browsers. When set to cover, the browser will crop the image when you set the width and height properties, rather the stretching it.
<img src="whatever.jpg">
img {
width: 175px;
height: 175px;
object-fit: cover;
}
Okay I got this.
Don't know if it's too late or what, but I've come up with a 100% pure CSS way of creating square thumbnails. It's something that I've been trying to find a solution for for quite a while and have had no luck. With some experimentation, I've got it working. The main two attributes to use are OVERFLOW:HIDDEN and WIDTH/HEIGHT:AUTO.
Okay here's what to do:
Let's say you have a batch of images of varying shapes and sizes, some landscape, some portrait, but all, of course, rectangular. The first thing to do is categorize the image links (thumbnails) by either portrait or landscape, using a class selector. Okay, so let's say you want just to create two thumbnails, to make this simpler. you have:
img1.jpg (portrait) and
img2.jpg (landscape)
For HTML it would look like this:
<a class="portrait" href="yoursite/yourimages/img1.jpg"><img src="yoursite/yourimages/img1.jpg /></a>
<a class="landscape" href="yoursite/yourimages/img2.jpg"><img src="yoursite/yourimages/img2.jpg /></a>
So, at this point since there is no css yet, the above code would give you your full-sized image as a thumbnail which would link to the same full-sized image. Right, so here's the css for both portrait and landscape. There are two declarations for each (the link and the link's image):
.landscape {
float:left;
width:175px;
height:175px;
overflow:hidden;
}
.landscape img{
width:auto;
height: 175px;
}
.portrait {
float:left;
width:175px;
height:175px;
overflow:hidden;
}
.portrait img {
width:175px; <-- notice these
height: auto; <-- have switched
}
The most important things are the width and height and the overflow:hidden. Float left isn't necessary for this to work.
In the landscape thumbnail declaration (.landscape) the bounding box is set to 175 x 175 and the overflow is set to hidden. That means that any visual information larger than that containing 175px square will be hidden from view.
For the landscape image declaration (.landscape img), the height is fixed at 175px, which resizes the original height and the width is set to auto, which resizes the original width, but only to the point of relating to the bounding square, which in this case is 175px. So rather than smush the width down into the square, it simply fills the square and then any extra visual information in the width (i.e. the overflow) is hidden with the overflow:hidden.
It works the same way for portrait, only that the width and height is switched, where height is auto and width is 175px. Basically in each case, whatever dimension exceeds the other is set to auto, because naturally the larger dimension would be the one that would overflow outside of the set thumbnail dimensions (175px x 175x).
And if you want to add margins between thumbs, for instance a 5px white margin, you can use the border property, otherwise there will be no margin where the information is overflowing.
Hope this makes sense.
Determine width and height of image, then active portrait or landscape class of the image. If portrait do {height:175px; width:auto}. If landscape, reverse height and width.
I highly suggestion the NailThumb jquery plugin for anyone that is looking to do this. It allows you to create square thumbnails without distortion. http://www.garralab.com/nailthumb.php
This might help.
CSS:
.image{
-moz-border-radius: 30px; /* FF1+ */
-webkit-border-radius: 30px; /* Saf3-4 */
border-radius: 30px; /* Opera 10.5, IE 9, Saf5, Chrome */
}
HTML:
<div class="image"></div>
This worked for me. Just put the URL to the image inside the div.
hey guys,
somehow i can't find the solution for my little problem.
i have a paragraph setting with a max-width of 630px.
in some cases i have images within one of those paragraphs - and in this case i want the image to act normal -> without any max-width setting.
.post-body p {
width:99%;
max-width: 630px;
}
.post-body p img{
max-width:100% !important;
}
is it even possible to have the image larger than the max-width setting that's set to it's parent? do i need to use javascript (jquery)?
thank you for your help.
Unless you're modifying the image width some other way, as long as you don't do anything to the image it will display at full size.
See here: http://jsfiddle.net/WrfQQ/
I didn't bother declaring any CSS for the image, so it, by default, will show up at full size. (Please note, for the sake of testing I decreased the width of the p to 100px)
As I can see the problem is that you put a MAX-width to the img... you have to code the relative width... so:
.post-body p img{
position: relative;
width: 100%;
}
if you want it in jQuery the code is the below:
$('.post-body p img').width() == $('.post-body p').width();
I have an outer div with a variable height (and max-height) that's set with a specific pixel amount by JavaScript, containing two divs within.
The 1st div is intended to hold a variable amount of content, e.g. a list of links. It has no height set.
The 2nd div is intended to hold a fixed amount of content, and has a specific height set.
Right now, the max-height isn't working. The 1st div keeps growing, even with overflow: auto; set, and pushes the 2nd div below it outside the bounds of the outer div. How can I make it so that when the 1st div gets too large for the outer div to contain both it and the fixed-height 2nd div, the 1st div will start to scroll?
Example page: http://thevastdesign.com/scrollTest.html
Thanks for any help. I'd appreciate a CSS solution the most, even if it requires some hacks. It only has to work in Firefox 3+, IE8, and IE7.
Ideas?
You cant really do that without JS. Your max-height on the outer-div isnt going to control the height of one of your inner divs to invoke its scrolling. That inner div is always going to be the height you set (pixels, auto, etc..). You can either make the entire outer div scroll as needed by using overflow: auto or you can set a max height on the first inner div and set the overflow.
Given your setup, I would do the following (class names are implied by your question, not taken from the linked source):
div.outer {
position: relative;
max-height: $length(y);
overflow: hidden;
}
div.innerFixed {
position: absolute;
bottom: 0;
height: $length(y);
overflow: hidden; /* just in case, to keep things from
blowing out into all manner of crazy */
}
div.innerFlex {
max-height: $length(y);
overflow: auto;
}
These rules don't address box properties, which will have an impact on the height values that you apply. The combined height values (with box values included) of .innerFixed and .innerFlex should equal the height value of the container.
If you want to get all Zen and flip the vertical composition, you do that by swapping bottom for top on .innerFixed and assigning margin-top or padding-top to .innerFlex.
Something else I noticed is that you've got
div.outer { float: left; }
...But given what you need from that element (and to set the right content priority) I would instead suggest that you put your big column first in the source order and apply
div.mainContent {
float: right;
width: $length(x);
}
div.outer { /* i.e., the column that started the discussion */
margin-right: length(x);
}
with the understanding that the margin-right of the latter is somewhat greater than the width of the former (greater to account for the gutter between the two elements). Try it, you'll like it.
I have a problem with IE.
I have a fixed div like this:
#fixed {
position: fixed;
top: 0px;
left: 0px;
z-index: 9998;
width: 100%;
height: 40px;
}
Inside this div I want to place another div that has a height that is higher than its holder (higher than 40px). So I put a relative or an absolute div inside it and it works splendid in all browsers except IE, at least IE8.
But in IE8 the child div gets cut because of the height of 40px specified for it's holder.
Is there any workaround to this problem? I'm starting to get gray hairs..
Quick reply: have you tried setting the clip property of the contained div to it's own size?
Another workaround would be (if, say you have a container div with left/right margins auto and position: relative) to have the second div outside the fixed div in your HTML, then position it fixed within the container div instead - since it's also fixed, you can then set top/bottom and left/right positions to suit.