Section 7.2. Block-Level Elements

7.2. Block-Level Elements

Block-level elements can behave in both predictable and surprising ways. The handling of element placement along the horizontal and vertical axes can differ, for example. To fully understand how block-level elements are handled, you must clearly understand a number of boundaries and areas. They are shown in detail in Figure 7-2.

Figure 7-2. The complete box model

In general, the width of an element is defined as the distance from the left inner edge to the right inner edge, and the height is the distance from the inner top to the inner bottom. Both of these properties can be applied to an element.

The various widths, heights, padding, and margins combine to determine how a document is laid out. In most cases, the height and width of the document are automatically determined by the browser and are based on the available display region and other factors. Under CSS, of course, you can assert more direct control over the way elements are sized and displayed. You can select different effects for horizontal and vertical layouts, so we'll tackle them separately.

7.2.1. Horizontal Formatting

Horizontal formatting is often more complex than you'd think. Part of the complexity has to do with how width affects the width of the content area, not the entire visible element box. Consider the following example:

 <p style="width: 200px;">wideness?</p> 

This line of code will make the paragraph's content 200 pixels wide. If you gave the element a background, this would be quite obvious. However, any padding, borders, or margins you specify are added to the width value. Suppose you do this:

 <p style="width: 200px; padding: 10px; margin: 20px;">wideness?</p> 

The visible element box is now 220 pixels wide since you've added 10 pixels of padding to the right and left of the content. The margins will now extend another 20 pixels to both sides for an overall element box width of 260 pixels.

Understanding the hidden additions to width is critical. Most users think that width refers to the width of the visible element box, and that if they declare an element to have padding, borders, and a width, the value they supply for the width will be the distance from the outer left border edge to the outer right border edge. This is not the case in CSS. Keep this fact firmly in mind to avoid confusion later.

As of this writing, the Box Model module of CSS includes proposals for ways to let authors choose whether width refers to the content width or the visible box width.

Almost as simple is the rule that says that the sum of the horizontal components of a block-level element box in the normal flow always equals the width of the parent. Take two paragraphs within a div whose margins have been set to 1em. The content width (the value of width) of the paragraph, plus its left and right padding, borders, and margins, always add up to the width of the div's content area.

Let's say the width of the div is 30em, making the sum total of the content width, padding, borders, and margins of each paragraph 30em. In Figure 7-3, the "blank" space around the paragraphs is actually their margins. If the div had any padding, there would be even more blank space, but that isn't the case here. I'll discuss padding soon.

Figure 7-3. Element boxes are as wide as their parent element's width Horizontal properties

The "seven properties" of horizontal formatting are: margin-left, border-left, padding-left, width, padding-right, border-right, and margin-right. These properties, which are diagrammed in Figure 7-4, relate to the horizontal layout of block-level boxes.

Figure 7-4. The "seven properties" of horizontal formatting

The values of these seven properties must add up to the width of the element's containing block, which is usually the value of width for a block element's parent (since block-level elements nearly always have block-level elements for parents).

Of these seven properties, only three may be set to auto: the width of the element's content and the left and right margins. The remaining properties must be set either to specific values or default to a width of zero. Figure 7-5 shows which parts of the box can take a value of auto and which cannot.

Figure 7-5. Horizontal properties that can be set to auto

width must either be set to auto or a nonnegative value of some type. When you do use auto in horizontal formatting, different effects can result.

CSS allows browsers to set a minimum value for width; this is the value below which a block-level element's width cannot drop. The value of this minimum can vary between browsers, as it is not defined in the specification. Using auto

If you set width, margin-left, or margin-right to a value of auto, and give the remaining two properties specific values, then the property that is set to auto determines the length required to make the element box's width equal to the parent element's width. In other words, let's say the sum of the seven properties must equal 400 pixels, no padding or borders are set, the right margin and width are set to 100px, and the left margin is set to auto. The left margin will be 200 pixels wide:

 p {margin-left: auto; margin-right: 100px;   width: 100px;}   /* 'auto' left margin evaluates to 200px */ 

In a sense, auto can be used to make up the difference between everything else and the required total. However, what if all three of these properties are set to 100px and none of them are set to auto?

In the case where all three properties are set to something other than autoor, in CSS terminology, when these formatting properties have been overconstrainedthen margin-right is always forced to be auto. This means that if both margins and the width are set to 100px, then the user agent will reset the right margin to auto. The right margin's width will then be set according to the rule that one auto value "fills in" the distance needed to make the element's overall width equal that of its containing block. Figure 7-6 shows the result of the following markup:

 p {margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px;   width: 100px;}   /* right margin forced to be 200px */ 

Figure 7-6. Overriding the margin-right setting

margin-right is forced to be auto only for left-to-right languages such as English. In right-to-left languages, everything is reversed, so margin-left is forced to be auto, not margin-right.

If both margins are set explicitly, and width is set to auto, then the value of width will be set to whatever value is needed to reach the required total (which is the content width of the parent element). The results of the following markup are shown in Figure 7-7:

 p {margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px; width: auto;} 

Figure 7-7. Automatic width

The case shown in Figure 7-7 is the most common since it is equivalent to setting the margins and not declaring anything for the width. The result of the following markup is exactly the same as that shown in Figure 7-7:

 p {margin-left: 100px; margin-right: 100px;} /* same as before */ More than one auto

Now let's see what happens when two of the three properties (width, margin-left, or margin-right) are set to auto. If both margins are set to auto, as shown in the code below, then they are set to equal lengths, thus centering the element within its parent, as you can see in Figure 7-8:

 p {width: 100px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} 

Figure 7-8. Setting an explicit width

Setting both margins to equal lengths is the correct way to center elements, as opposed to using text-align. (text-align applies only to the inline content of a block-level element, so setting an element to have a text-align of center shouldn't center it.)

In practice, only browsers released after February 1999 correctly handle auto margin centering, and not all of them get it completely right. Those that do not handle auto margins correctly behave in inconsistent ways, but the safest bet is to assume that outdated browsers will reset both margins to zero.

Another way of sizing elements is to set one of the margins and the width to auto. The margin set to auto is reduced to zero:

 p {margin-left: auto; margin-right: 100px;  width: auto;}  /* left margin evaluates to 0 */ 

The width is then set to the value necessary to make the element fill its containing block.

Finally, what happens when all three properties are set to auto? The answer is simple: both margins are set to zero, and the width is made as wide as possible. This result is the same as the default situation, when no values are explicitly declared for margins or the width. In such a case, the margins default to zero and the width defaults to auto.

Note that since horizontal margins do not collapse, the padding, borders, and margins of a parent element can affect its children. The effect is indirect in that the margins (and so on) of an element can induce an offset for child elements. The results of the following markup are shown in Figure 7-9:

 div {padding: 30px; background: silver;} p {margin: 20px; padding: 0; background: white;} 

Figure 7-9. Offset is implicit in the parent's margins and padding Negative margins

So far, this probably all seems rather straightforward, and you may be wondering why I said things could be complicated. There's another side to margins: the negative side. That's right, it's possible to set negative values for margins. Doing so results in some interesting effects, assuming that the user agent supports negative margins at all.

According to the CSS specification, user agents are not required to fully support negative margins. It says: "Negative values for margin properties are allowed, but there may be implementation-specific limits." As of this writing, there are few, if any, such limits in current browsers.

Remember that the total of the seven horizontal properties always equals the width of the parent element. As long as all properties are zero or greater, an element can never be wider than its parent's content area. However, consider the following markup, depicted in Figure 7-10:

 div {width: 400px; border: 3px solid black;} p.wide {margin-left: 10px; width: auto; margin-right: -50px; } 

Figure 7-10. Wider children through negative margins

Yes, indeed, the child element is wider than its parent! This is mathematically correct:

10px + 0 + 0 + 440px + 0 + 0 - 50px = 400px

The 440px is the evaluation of width: auto, which is the number needed to balance out the rest of the values in the equation. Even though it leads to a child element sticking out of its parent, the specification hasn't been violated because the values of the seven properties add up to the required total. It's a semantic dodge, but it's valid behavior.

Now, let's add some borders to the mix:

 div {width: 400px; border: 3px solid black;} p.wide {margin-left: 10px; width: auto; margin-right: -50px;   border: 3px solid gray;} 

The resulting change will be a reduction in the evaluated width of width:

10px + 3px + 0 + 434px + 0 + 3px - 50px = 400px

If you were to introduce padding, then the value of width would drop even more.

Conversely, it's possible to have auto right margins evaluate to negative amounts. If the values of other properties force the right margin to be negative in order to satisfy the requirement that elements be no wider than their containing block, then that's what will happen. Consider:

 div {width: 400px; border: 3px solid black;} p.wide {margin-left: 10px; width: 500px; margin-right: auto;   border: 3px solid gray;} 

The equation will work out like this:

10px + 3px + 0 + 500px + 0 + 3px - 116px = 400px

The right margin will evaluate to -116px. Even if you'd given it another value, this would be the case because of the rule stipulating that if an element's dimensions are overconstrained, the right margin is reset to whatever is needed to make the numbers work out correctly (except in right-to-left languages, where the left margin would be overruled).

Let's consider another example, illustrated in Figure 7-11, where the left margin is set to be negative:

 div {width: 400px; border: 3px solid black;} p.wide {margin-left: -50px; width: auto; margin-right: 10px;   border: 3px solid gray;} 

Figure 7-11. Setting a negative left margin

With a negative left margin, not only does the paragraph spill beyond the borders of the div, but it also spills beyond the edge of the browser window itself!

Remember that padding, borders, and content widths (and heights) can never be negative. Only margins can be less than zero. Percentages

When it comes to percentage values for the width, padding, and margins, the same basic rules apply. It doesn't really matter whether the values are declared with lengths or percentages.

Percentages can be very useful. Suppose you want an element's content to be two-thirds the width of its containing block, the right and left padding to be 5 percent each, the left margin to be 5 percent, and the right margin to take up the slack. That would be written something like:

 <p style="width: 67%; padding-right: 5%; padding-left: 5%; margin-right: auto; margin-left: 5%;">playing percentages</p> 

The right margin would evaluate to 18 percent (100% - 67% - 5% - 5% - 5%) of the width of the containing block.

Mixing percentages and length units can be tricky, however. Consider the following example:

 <p style="width: 67%; padding-right: 2em; padding-left: 2em; margin-right: auto; margin-left: 5em;">mixed lengths</p> 

In this case, the element's box can be defined like this:

5em + 0 + 2em + 67% + 2em + 0 + auto = containing block width

In order for the right margin's width to evaluate to zero, the element's containing block must be 27.272727em wide (with the content area of the element being 18.272727em wide). Any wider than that, and the right margin will evaluate to a positive value. Any narrower, and the right margin will be a negative value.

The situation gets even more complicated if you start mixing length values, like this:

 <p style="width: 67%; padding-right: 15px; padding-left: 10px; margin-right: auto; margin-left: 5em;">more mixed lengths</p> 

And, to make things more complex, borders cannot have percentage widths, only lengths. The bottom line is that it's impossible to create a fully flexible element layout based solely on percentages unless you're willing to avoid using borders. Replaced elements

So far, we've been dealing with the horizontal formatting of nonreplaced block-level elements in the normal flow of text. Replaced block-level elements are a bit simpler to manage. All of the rules for nonreplaced blocks hold true, with one exception: if width is left as auto, then the width of the element is the content's intrinsic width. The image in the following example will be 20 pixels wide because that's the width of the original image:

 <img src="/books/2/885/1/html/2/smile.png" style="display: block; width: auto; margin: 0;"> 

If the actual image were 100 pixels instead, it would be laid out as 100 pixels wide.

It's possible to override this rule by assigning a specific value to width. Suppose you modify the previous example to show the same image three times, each with a different width value:

 <img src="/books/2/885/1/html/2/smile.png" style="display: block; width: 25px; margin: 0;"> <img src="/books/2/885/1/html/2/smile.png" style="display: block; width: 50px; margin: 0;"> <img src="/books/2/885/1/html/2/smile.png" style="display: block; width: 100px; margin: 0;"> 

This is illustrated in Figure 7-12.

Figure 7-12. Changing replaced element widths

Note that the height of the elements also increases. When a replaced element's width is changed from its intrinsic width, the value of height is scaled to match, unless height has been set to an explicit value of its own. The reverse is also true: if height is set, but width is left as auto, then the width is scaled proportionately to the change in height.

Now that you're thinking about height, let's move on to the vertical formatting of block-level normal-flow elements.

7.2.2. Vertical Formatting

Like horizontal formatting, vertical formatting of block-level elements has its own set of interesting behaviors. The default height of an element is determined by its content. Height is also affected by the width of the content; the skinnier a paragraph becomes, the taller it must be to contain all of the inline content within it.

In CSS, it is possible to set an explicit height on any block-level element. If you do this, the resulting behavior depends on several other factors. Assume that the specified height is greater than that needed to display the content:

 <p style="height: 10em;"> 

In this case, the extra height has a visual effect somewhat like extra padding. But suppose the height is less than what is needed to display the content:

 <p style="height: 3em;"> 

When that happens, the browser is supposed to provide a means of viewing all content without increasing the height of the element box. The browser may add a scrollbar to the element, as shown in Figure 7-13.

Figure 7-13. Heights that don't match the element's content height

In a case where the content of an element is taller than the height of its box, the actual behavior of a user agent will depend on the value of (and its support for) the property overflow. This scenario is covered in Chapter 10.

Under CSS1, user agents can ignore any value of height other than auto if an element is not a replaced element (such as an image). In CSS2 and CSS2.1, the value of height cannot be ignored, except in one specific circumstance involving percentage values. We'll talk about that in a moment.

Just as with width, height defines the content area's height, not the height of the visible element box. Any padding, borders, or margins on the top or bottom of the element box are added to the value for height. Vertical properties

As was the case with horizontal formatting, vertical formatting also has seven related properties: margin-top, border-top, padding-top, height, padding-bottom, border-bottom, and margin-bottom. These properties are diagrammed in Figure 7-14.

Figure 7-14. The "seven properties" of vertical formatting

The values of these seven properties must equal the height of the element's containing block. This is usually the value of height for a block-level element's parent (since block-level elements nearly always have block-level elements for parents).

Only three of these seven properties may be set to auto: the height of the element's content and the top and bottom margins. The top and bottom padding and borders must be set to specific values or else they default to a width of zero (assuming no border-style is declared). If border-style has been set, then the width of the borders is set to be the vaguely defined value medium. Figure 7-15 provides an illustration for remembering which parts of the box may have a value of auto and which may not.

Figure 7-15. Vertical properties that can be set to auto

Interestingly, if either margin-top or margin-bottom is set to auto for a block element in the normal flow, it automatically evaluates to 0. A value of 0 unfortunately prevents easy vertical centering of normal-flow elements in their containing blocks. It also means that if you set the top and bottom margins of an element to auto, they are effectively reset to 0 and removed from the element box.

The handling of auto top and bottom margins is different for positioned elements. See Chapter 10 for more details.

height must be set to auto or to a nonnegative value of some type. Percentage heights

You already saw how length-value heights are handled, so let's spend a moment on percentages. If the height of a block-level, normal-flow element is set to a percentage, then that value is taken as a percentage of the height of the containing block. Given the following markup, the resulting paragraph will be 3em tall:

 <div style="height: 6em;">  <p style="height: 50%;">Half as tall</p> </div> 

Since setting the top and bottom margins to auto will give them zero height, the only way to vertically center the element is to set them both to 25%.

However, in cases where the height of the containing block is not explicitly declared, percentage heights are reset to auto. If you changed the previous example so that the height of the div is auto, the paragraph will now be exactly as tall as the div itself:

 <div style="height: auto;">  <p style="height: 50%;">NOT half as tall; height reset to auto</p> </div> 

These two possibilities are illustrated in Figure 7-16. (The spaces between the paragraph borders and the div borders are the top and bottom margins on the paragraphs.)

Figure 7-16. Percentage heights in different circumstances Auto heights

In the simplest case, a block-level, normal-flow element with height: auto is rendered just high enough to enclose the line boxes of its inline content (including text). auto height sets a border on a paragraph and assumes no paddingexpect the bottom border to go just under the bottom line of text and the top border to go just above the top line of text.

If an auto-height, block-level, normal-flow element has only block-level children, then its default height will be the distance from the top of the topmost block-level child's outer border edge to the bottom of the bottommost block-level child's outer border edge. Therefore, the margins of the child elements will "stick out" of the element that contains them. (This behavior is explained in the next section.) However, if the block-level element has either top or bottom padding, or top or bottom borders, then its height will be the distance from the top of the outer top margin edge of its topmost child to the outer bottom margin edge of its bottommost child:

 <div style="height: auto; background: silver;"> <p style="margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 2em;">A paragraph!</p> </div> <div style="height: auto; border-top: 1px solid; border-bottom: 1px solid; background: silver;"> <p style="margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 2em;">Another paragraph!</p> </div> 

Both of these behaviors are demonstrated in Figure 7-17.

Figure 7-17. Auto heights with block-level children

If you changed the borders to padding in the previous example, the effect on the height of the div would be the same: it would still enclose the paragraph's margins within it. Collapsing vertical margins

One other important aspect of vertical formatting is the collapsing of vertically adjacent margins. Collapsing behavior applies only to margins. Padding and borders, where they exist, are never collapsed by anything.

An unordered list, where list items follow one another, is a perfect example of margin collapsing. Assume that the following is declared for a list that contains five items:

 li {margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 15px;} 

Each list item has a 10-pixel top margin and a 15-pixel bottom margin. When the list is rendered, however, the distance between adjacent list items is 15 pixels, not 25. This happens because adjacent margins are collapsed along the vertical axis. In other words, the smaller of the two margins is eliminated in favor of the larger. Figure 7-18 shows the difference between collapsed and uncollapsed margins.

Figure 7-18. Collapsed versus uncollapsed margins

Correctly implemented user agents collapse vertically adjacent margins, as shown in the first list in Figure 7-18, where there are 15-pixel spaces between each list item. The second list shows what would happen if the user agent didn't collapse margins, resulting in 25-pixel spaces between list items.

If you don't like the word "collapse," use "overlap." Although the margins do not really overlap, you can visualize what's happening using the following analogy. Imagine that each element, (for example, a paragraph), is a small piece of paper with the content of the element written on it. Around each piece of paper is some clear plastic, which represents the margins. The first piece of paper (say an h1 piece) is laid down on a canvas. A second piece of paper (a paragraph) is laid down below it and then slid up until the edge of its plastic touches the other paper's edge. If the first piece of paper has half an inch of plastic along its bottom edge, and the second has a third of an inch along its top, then when they slide together, the first piece's plastic edge will touch the top edge of the second piece of paper. The two are now positioned on the canvas, and the plastic attached to the pieces overlaps.

Collapsing also occurs where multiple margins meet, such as at the end of a list. Adding to the earlier example, let's assume the following rules apply:

 ul {margin-bottom: 15px;} li {margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 20px;} h1 {margin-top: 28px;} 

The last item in the list has a bottom margin of 20 pixels, the bottom margin of the ul is 15 pixels, and the top margin of a succeeding h1 is 28 pixels. So once the margins have been collapsed, the distance between the end of the li and the beginning of the h1 is 28 pixels, as shown in Figure 7-19.

Figure 7-19. Collapsing in detail

Now, recall the examples from the previous section, where the introduction of a border or padding on a containing block caused the margins of its child elements to be contained within it. You can see this behavior by adding a border to the ul element in the previous example:

 ul {margin-bottom: 15px; border: 1px solid;} li {margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 20px;} h1 {margin-top: 28px;} 

With this change, the bottom margin of the li element is now placed inside its parent element (the ul). Therefore, the only margin collapsing that takes place is between the ul and the h1, as illustrated in Figure 7-20.

Figure 7-20. Collapsing (or not) with borders added to the mix Negative margins

Negative margins do have an impact on vertical formatting, and they affect how margins are collapsed. If negative vertical margins are set, then the browser should take the absolute maximum of both margins. The absolute value of the negative margin is then subtracted from the positive margin. In other words, the negative is added to the positive, and the resulting value is the distance between the elements. Figure 7-21 provides two concrete examples.

Figure 7-21. Examples of negative vertical margins

Notice the "pulling" effect of negative top and bottom margins. This is really no different from the way that negative horizontal margins cause an element to push outside of its parent. Consider:

 p.neg {margin-top: -50px; margin-right: 10px;   margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 0;   border: 3px solid gray;} <div style="width: 420px; background-color: silver;    padding: 10px; margin-top: 50px; border: 1px solid;"> <p > A paragraph. </p> A div. </div> 

As you see in Figure 7-22, the paragraph has simply been pulled upward by its negative top margin. Note that the content of the div that follows the paragraph in the markup has also been pulled upward 50 pixels.

Figure 7-22. The effects of a negative top margin

The negative bottom margin makes the paragraph look like it's been pulled upward. Compare the following markup to the situation depicted in Figure 7-23:

 p.neg {margin-bottom: -50px; margin-right: 10px;   margin-left: 10px; margin-top: 0;   border: 3px solid gray;} <div style="width: 420px; margin-top: 50px;"> <p > A paragraph. </p> </div> <p> The next paragraph. </p> 

Figure 7-23. The effects of a negative bottom margin

What's really happening in Figure 7-23 is that the elements following the div are placed according to the location of the bottom of the div. As you can see, the end of the div is actually above the visual bottom of its child paragraph. The next element after the div is the appropriate distance from the bottom of the div. This is expected, given the rules you used.

Now let's consider an example where the margins of a list item, an unordered list, and a paragraph are all collapsed. In this case, the unordered list and paragraph are assigned negative margins:

 li {margin-bottom: 20px;} ul {margin-bottom: -15px;} h1 {margin-top: -18px;} 

The larger of the two negative margins (-18px) is added to the largest positive margin (20px), yielding 20px - 18px = 2px. Thus, there are only two pixels between the bottom of the list item's content and the top of the h1's content, as you can see in Figure 7-24.

Figure 7-24. Collapsing margins and negative margins, in detail

One area of unresolved behavior is that if elements overlap each other due to negative margins, it's hard to tell which elements are on top. You may also have noticed that none of the examples in this section use background colors. If they did, their content might be overwritten by the background color of a following element. This is expected behavior since browsers usually render elements in order from beginning to end, so a normal-flow element that comes later in the document can be expected to overwrite an earlier element, assuming the two end up overlapping.

7.2.3. List Items

List items have a few special rules of their own. They are typically preceded by a marker, such as a small dot or a number. This marker isn't actually part of the list item's content area, so effects like those illustrated in Figure 7-25 are common.

Figure 7-25. The content of list items

CSS1 says very little about the placement and effects of these markers with regard to a document's layout. CSS2 introduced properties specifically designed to address this issue, such as marker-offset. However, changes in thinking and a lack of implementations caused this to be dropped from CSS2.1, and it is likely that future versions of CSS will introduce a different way of defining the distance between the content and the marker. Therefore, the placement of markers is largely beyond the control of authors (at least as of this writing).

For a more detailed exploration of lists and how they can be styled, see Chapter 12.

The marker attached to a list item element can be either outside the content of the list item or treated as an inline marker at the beginning of the content, depending on the value of the property list-style-position. If the marker is brought inside, then the list item will interact with its neighbors exactly like a block-level element, as illustrated in Figure 7-26.

Figure 7-26. Markers inside and outside the list

If the marker stays outside the content, it is placed some distance from the left content edge of the content (in left-to-right languages). No matter how the list's styles are altered, the marker stays the same distance from the content edge. Occasionally, the markers may be pushed outside of the list element itself, as you can see in Figure 7-26.

CSS(c) The Definitive Guide
CSS: The Definitive Guide
ISBN: 0596527330
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2007
Pages: 130
Authors: Eric A. Meyer © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: