Stopping a div from causing the parent table's width to increase

Question

Stopping a div from causing the parent table's width to increase

I've encountered an interesting challenge with a project I'm working on. I need to inject markup into pages that I don't have control over, specifically within tables. The issue arises when my injected div causes the parent table to expand uncontrollably due to the lack of table-layout: fixed. Here is an example setup:

<div style="width: 600px;">
  <table width="100%">
    <tr>
      <td>
        <div> <!-- my content --> </div>
      </td>
    </tr>
  </table>
</div>

While setting table-layout: fixed on the table would solve this problem, I am limited to making changes starting from the innermost div only.

I discovered a hack that works by applying

width: 100%; display: table; table-layout: fixed;

to my div. However, I'm unsure about its compliance with relevant specifications since the contents are all display: block.

The provided markup showcases the issue and presents the hack in action:

<div class="outer">
  <table class="bad-table">
    <tr>
      <td>
        <div class="wrapper">
          <div>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet...</div>
          <div class="target">
            <ul class="menu">
              <li style="background-color: #800;"></li>
              <li style="background-color: #880;"></li>
              <li style="background-color: #080;"></li>
              <li style="background-color: #008;"></li>
            </ul>
          </div>
          <div>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet...</div>
        </div>
      </td>
    </tr>
  </table>
</div>

CSS:

.outer {
  width: 200px;
  border: 1px solid #0f0;
}

.bad-table {
  width: 100%;
  border: 1px solid #f00;
}

.target {
  width: 100%;
  overflow-x: auto;
  overflow-y: hidden;
}

.wrapper {
  width: 100%;
}

.wrapper.hack {
  display: table;
  table-layout: fixed;
}

This scenario highlights two main constraints:

I cannot modify any markup outside of my injected div.
The height of my injected div must be based on its content, preventing solutions using position: absolute.

Is the presented hack a suitable solution for this issue, or is there a more effective approach?

html css

Answer 1

Answer №1

Dealing with tables can be tricky, but I have had success using position: absolute in various scenarios. Therefore, my query for you is: Will this approach work for your situation?

It's important to note that the wrapper should only serve as a container for the target, meaning all content must be placed within the target. Failure to do so may result in the target overlapping its sibling elements unless proper margins/paddings are applied.

.outer {
  width: 200px;
}

.bad-table {
  width: 100%;
}

.wrapper {
  position: relative;
}
.target {
  position: absolute;
  left: 0;
  top: 0;
  width: 100%;
  height: auto;
  overflow: auto;
}

ul.menu {
  list-style: none;
  table-layout: fixed;
  padding: 0;
  margin: 0;
  white-space: nowrap;
  width: 100%;
}
ul.menu li {
  display: inline-block;
  width: 100px;
  height: 50px;
  padding: 0;
  margin: 0;
}

<div class="outer">
  <table class="bad-table">
    <tr>
      <td>
        <div class="wrapper">
          <div class="target">
          
          
            <div>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam imperdiet pharetra nunc at condimentum.</div>
            <ul class="menu">
              <li style="background-color: #800;"></li>
              <li style="background-color: #880;"></li>
              <li style="background-color: #080;"></li>
              <li style="background-color: #008;"></li>
            </ul>
            <div>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam imperdiet pharetra nunc at condimentum.</div>


          </div>
        </div>
      </td>
    </tr>
  </table>
</div>

A different perspective on the code provided using display: table:

.outer {
  width: 200px;
}

.bad-table {
  width: 100%;
}

.wrapper {
  width: 100%;
  display: table;
  table-layout: fixed;
}
.target {
  overflow: auto;
}

ul.menu {
  list-style: none;
  table-layout: fixed;
  padding: 0;
  margin: 0;
  white-space: nowrap;
  width: 100%;
}
ul.menu li {
  display: inline-block;
  width: 100px;
  height: 50px;
  padding: 0;
  margin: 0;
}

<div class="outer">
  <table class="bad-table">
    <tr>
      <td>
        <div class="wrapper">
          <div class="target">
          
          
            <div>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam imperdiet pharetra nunc at condimentum.</div>
            <ul class="menu">
              <li style="background-color: #800;"></li>
              <li style="background-color: #880;"></li>
              <li style="background-color: #080;"></li>
              <li style="background-color: #008;"></li>
            </ul>
            <div>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam imperdiet pharetra nunc at condimentum.</div>


          </div>
        </div>
      </td>
    </tr>
  </table>
</div>

Update

Through further testing and references to the following sources:

https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/tables.html#anonymous-boxes
Is a DIV inside a TD a bad idea?

In solving this dilemma, it seems that if there is content preceding and following the uncontrolled outer div/table where the content of your content div needs to flow normally, position: absolute might not suffice depending on how the rest of the page's content is structured. In such cases,

display: table; table-layout: fixed

could be more effective.

Based on the aforementioned sources, using display: table¹ should pose no compliance issues, although it's advisable to test this behavior across major browsers since each browser may handle divs within tds differently (I tested Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and IE11 on Windows, all yielding successful results).

¹ Specifically, this text permits a display: block element directly within a display: table element, as the intermediary table-row and table-cell boxes are automatically generated as anonymous:

Generate absent child wrappers:

If a child C of a 'table' or 'inline-table' box isn't a proper table child, create an anonymous 'table-row' box surrounding C and any consecutive non-table children.

If a child C of a row group box isn't a 'table-row' box, produce an anonymous 'table-row' box around C and any consecutive siblings not being 'table-row' boxes.

If a child C of a 'table-row' box isn't a 'table-cell', generate an anonymous 'table-cell' box enclosing C and any consecutive non-'table-cell' boxes.

Answer 2

Dealing with tables can be tricky, but I have had success using position: absolute in various scenarios. Therefore, my query for you is: Will this approach work for your situation?

It's important to note that the wrapper should only serve as a container for the target, meaning all content must be placed within the target. Failure to do so may result in the target overlapping its sibling elements unless proper margins/paddings are applied.

.outer {
  width: 200px;
}

.bad-table {
  width: 100%;
}

.wrapper {
  position: relative;
}
.target {
  position: absolute;
  left: 0;
  top: 0;
  width: 100%;
  height: auto;
  overflow: auto;
}

ul.menu {
  list-style: none;
  table-layout: fixed;
  padding: 0;
  margin: 0;
  white-space: nowrap;
  width: 100%;
}
ul.menu li {
  display: inline-block;
  width: 100px;
  height: 50px;
  padding: 0;
  margin: 0;
}

<div class="outer">
  <table class="bad-table">
    <tr>
      <td>
        <div class="wrapper">
          <div class="target">
          
          
            <div>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam imperdiet pharetra nunc at condimentum.</div>
            <ul class="menu">
              <li style="background-color: #800;"></li>
              <li style="background-color: #880;"></li>
              <li style="background-color: #080;"></li>
              <li style="background-color: #008;"></li>
            </ul>
            <div>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam imperdiet pharetra nunc at condimentum.</div>


          </div>
        </div>
      </td>
    </tr>
  </table>
</div>

A different perspective on the code provided using display: table:

.outer {
  width: 200px;
}

.bad-table {
  width: 100%;
}

.wrapper {
  width: 100%;
  display: table;
  table-layout: fixed;
}
.target {
  overflow: auto;
}

ul.menu {
  list-style: none;
  table-layout: fixed;
  padding: 0;
  margin: 0;
  white-space: nowrap;
  width: 100%;
}
ul.menu li {
  display: inline-block;
  width: 100px;
  height: 50px;
  padding: 0;
  margin: 0;
}

<div class="outer">
  <table class="bad-table">
    <tr>
      <td>
        <div class="wrapper">
          <div class="target">
          
          
            <div>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam imperdiet pharetra nunc at condimentum.</div>
            <ul class="menu">
              <li style="background-color: #800;"></li>
              <li style="background-color: #880;"></li>
              <li style="background-color: #080;"></li>
              <li style="background-color: #008;"></li>
            </ul>
            <div>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam imperdiet pharetra nunc at condimentum.</div>


          </div>
        </div>
      </td>
    </tr>
  </table>
</div>

Update

Through further testing and references to the following sources:

https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/tables.html#anonymous-boxes
Is a DIV inside a TD a bad idea?

In solving this dilemma, it seems that if there is content preceding and following the uncontrolled outer div/table where the content of your content div needs to flow normally, position: absolute might not suffice depending on how the rest of the page's content is structured. In such cases,

display: table; table-layout: fixed

could be more effective.

Based on the aforementioned sources, using display: table¹ should pose no compliance issues, although it's advisable to test this behavior across major browsers since each browser may handle divs within tds differently (I tested Chrome, Firefox, Edge, and IE11 on Windows, all yielding successful results).

¹ Specifically, this text permits a display: block element directly within a display: table element, as the intermediary table-row and table-cell boxes are automatically generated as anonymous:

Generate absent child wrappers:

If a child C of a 'table' or 'inline-table' box isn't a proper table child, create an anonymous 'table-row' box surrounding C and any consecutive non-table children.

If a child C of a row group box isn't a 'table-row' box, produce an anonymous 'table-row' box around C and any consecutive siblings not being 'table-row' boxes.

If a child C of a 'table-row' box isn't a 'table-cell', generate an anonymous 'table-cell' box enclosing C and any consecutive non-'table-cell' boxes.

Answer 3

Answer №2

When trying to scale an element to match its parent's width, specifically within a table cell, there are some challenges that need to be addressed. Take the following into consideration:

<style>
  table {
    border-collapse: collapse;
    width: 100%;
  }
  td {
    border: 1px solid gray;
    padding: 20px;
  }

  .prevent-table-expand-wrap {
    position: relative;
  }
  .prevent-table-expand-inner {
    /* Add ellipsis. */
    overflow-x: hidden;
    text-overflow: ellipsis;
    white-space: nowrap;

    /* Make div the width of its parent. */
    position: absolute;
    left: 0;
    right: 0;
    bottom: 0;
  }
</style>

<table>
  <tr><td>
    Column 1.
  </td><td>
    Column 2.
    <div class="prevent-table-expand-wrap">
      &nbsp;
      <div class="prevent-table-expand-inner" title="This contains way too much text, so prevent scaling table">
        Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text.
      </div>
    </div>
  </td><td>
    Column 3.
  </td></tr>
</table>

https://jsfiddle.net/zgwmLms1/19/

The concept behind this method is to have the wrapper div attain the full width of its container, in this case the table cell. By having limited content within the wrapper that affects column widths, and positioning the inner div absolutely within the wrapper, all three columns remain evenly sized due to the presence of the "Column n" text.

Answer 4

When trying to scale an element to match its parent's width, specifically within a table cell, there are some challenges that need to be addressed. Take the following into consideration:

<style>
  table {
    border-collapse: collapse;
    width: 100%;
  }
  td {
    border: 1px solid gray;
    padding: 20px;
  }

  .prevent-table-expand-wrap {
    position: relative;
  }
  .prevent-table-expand-inner {
    /* Add ellipsis. */
    overflow-x: hidden;
    text-overflow: ellipsis;
    white-space: nowrap;

    /* Make div the width of its parent. */
    position: absolute;
    left: 0;
    right: 0;
    bottom: 0;
  }
</style>

<table>
  <tr><td>
    Column 1.
  </td><td>
    Column 2.
    <div class="prevent-table-expand-wrap">
      &nbsp;
      <div class="prevent-table-expand-inner" title="This contains way too much text, so prevent scaling table">
        Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text. Lots of text.
      </div>
    </div>
  </td><td>
    Column 3.
  </td></tr>
</table>

https://jsfiddle.net/zgwmLms1/19/

The concept behind this method is to have the wrapper div attain the full width of its container, in this case the table cell. By having limited content within the wrapper that affects column widths, and positioning the inner div absolutely within the wrapper, all three columns remain evenly sized due to the presence of the "Column n" text.

Answer 5

Answer №3

You may want to experiment with using display: inline-block for the specific div that needs to be resized. I recently tried this and found success.

Answer 6

You may want to experiment with using display: inline-block for the specific div that needs to be resized. I recently tried this and found success.

Stopping a div from causing the parent table's width to increase

Answer №1

Answer №2

Answer №3

Similar questions

The vertical alignment feature seems to be malfunctioning in Bootstrap 4

Maximizing values entered into form fields

Replacing Material-UI dialog fonts

steps to receive an event within an AngularJS function

What is causing my AJAX Contact Form to navigate away from the original page?

"Even when hidden, an HTML Div element still occupies space on the

The mysterious case of the vanishing jQuery traversal box

"Data being presented on the page is causing the generation of numerous tables

Unable to delete data in Laravel 8

Stop iPhone body scrolling when fullscreen overlay is opened

What is the correct way to center-align elements?

Tips for refreshing the page without losing the values of variables

Switch the class of a div using jQuery when it is clicked

How to ensure your content is always visible on Mobile Safari iOS 8 by making sure it stays

The functionality of HTML labels may be limited when used in conjunction with AJAX

Revamp selected bootstrap attribute

Toggle the display of slide numbers in RMarkdown xaringan / reveal.js presentations

Is it possible to restrict the application of jquery .css() to a particular media query only?

Tips for centering links in the navigation bar on Bootstrap 5 when viewing in a small size

Slider UI handle in jQuery sliding out of the div container