News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on CSS Findings from the Threads App. Parent comment

Re:CSS Findings from the Threads App by truckerbill on Sunday July 16, 2023 @09:49AM (#36746971)
Not if the parent or ancestors don't have a width set... Hence why you need context.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:CSS Findings from the Threads App by aidos on Sunday July 16, 2023 @11:37AM (#36748202)
The parent has _some_ width, even if it’s not explicitly set.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:CSS Findings from the Threads App by truckerbill on Monday July 17, 2023 @11:22AM (#36759346)
Yes, and I wish 100% would respect that implicit width but it doesn't. Try it
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:CSS Findings from the Threads App by aidos on Monday July 17, 2023 @05:00PM (#36764010)
Any chance you could show an example? In theory a block level element can only sit inside another block level element. And those expand to the width of their parent unless you constrain the width.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:CSS Findings from the Threads App by truckerbill on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @07:36AM (#36770707)
https://jsfiddle.net/jcaysopd/75/

I have no doubt there is a 'logical reason' for the behaviour but it doesn't stop it being annoying to work with.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:CSS Findings from the Threads App by aidos on Friday July 21, 2023 @05:47PM (#36820336)
Gotcha. That’s because of the 100% vs auto thing. These days everyone just puts “box-sizing: border-box” on everything to make it go away.

This explains a bit more about what you’re seeing

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/28353625/why-does-percent...

[ Parent | on HN ]