I have 4 flexbox columns and everything works fine, but when I add some text to a column and set it to a big font size, it is making the column wider than it should be due to the flex property.
I tried to use word-break: break-word
and it helped, but still when I resize the column to a very small width, letters in the text are broken into multiple lines (one letter per line), and yet the column does not get smaller width than one letter size.
Watch this video (at the start, the first column is the smallest, but when I resized the window, it is the widest column. I just want to respect flex settings always; flex sizes 1 : 3 : 4 : 4)
I know, setting font-size and column padding to smaller will help... but is there any other solution?
I can not use overflow-x: hidden
.
JSFiddle
.container { display: flex; width: 100% } .col { min-height: 200px; padding: 30px; word-break: break-word } .col1 { flex: 1; background: orange; font-size: 80px } .col2 { flex: 3; background: yellow } .col3 { flex: 4; background: skyblue } .col4 { flex: 4; background: red }
<div class="container"> <div class="col col1">Lorem ipsum dolor</div> <div class="col col2">Lorem ipsum dolor</div> <div class="col col3">Lorem ipsum dolor</div> <div class="col col4">Lorem ipsum dolor</div> </div>
The initial value of the flex-wrap property is nowrap . This means that if you have a set of flex items that are too wide for their container, they will overflow it.
With flex-shrink set to 0 the items are not allowed to shrink and so they overflow the box. Change the flex-shrink value to 1 and you will see each item shrink by the same amount, in order that all of the items now fit in the box. They have become smaller than their initial width in order to do so.
The element will not shrink: it will retain the width it needs, and not wrap its content. Its siblings will shrink to give space to the target element. Because the target element will not wrap its content, there is a chance for the flexbox container's content to overflow.
You're encountering a flexbox default setting.
A flex item cannot be smaller than the size of its content along the main axis.
The defaults are...
min-width: auto
min-height: auto
...for flex items in row-direction and column-direction, respectively.
You can override these defaults by setting flex items to:
min-width: 0
min-height: 0
overflow: hidden
(or any other value, except visible
)4.5. Automatic Minimum Size of Flex Items
To provide a more reasonable default minimum size for flex items, this specification introduces a new
auto
value as the initial value of themin-width
andmin-height
properties defined in CSS 2.1.
With regard to the auto
value...
On a flex item whose
overflow
isvisible
in the main axis, when specified on the flex item’s main-axis min-size property, specifies an automatic minimum size. It otherwise computes to0
.
In other words:
min-width: auto
and min-height: auto
defaults apply only when overflow
is visible
.overflow
value is not visible
, the value of the min-size property is 0
.overflow: hidden
can be a substitute for min-width: 0
and min-height: 0
.and...
min-height: auto
by default.Nested Flex Containers
If you're dealing with flex items on multiple levels of the HTML structure, it may be necessary to override the default min-width: auto
/ min-height: auto
on items at higher levels.
Basically, a higher level flex item with min-width: auto
can prevent shrinking on items nested below with min-width: 0
.
Examples:
Chrome vs. Firefox / Edge
Since at least 2017, it appears that Chrome is either (1) reverting back to the min-width: 0
/ min-height: 0
defaults, or (2) automatically applying the 0
defaults in certain situations based on a mystery algorithm. (This could be what they call an intervention.) As a result, many people are seeing their layout (especially desired scrollbars) work as expected in Chrome, but not in Firefox / Edge. This issue is covered in more detail here: flex-shrink discrepancy between Firefox and Chrome
IE11
As noted in the spec, the auto
value for the min-width
and min-height
properties is "new". This means that some browsers may still render a 0
value by default, because they implemented flex layout before the value was updated and because 0
is the initial value for min-width
and min-height
in CSS 2.1. One such browser is IE11. Other browsers have updated to the newer auto
value as defined in the flexbox spec.
.container { display: flex; } .col { min-height: 200px; padding: 30px; word-break: break-word } .col1 { flex: 1; background: orange; font-size: 80px; min-width: 0; /* NEW */ } .col2 { flex: 3; background: yellow } .col3 { flex: 4; background: skyblue } .col4 { flex: 4; background: red }
<div class="container"> <div class="col col1">Lorem ipsum dolor</div> <div class="col col2">Lorem ipsum dolor</div> <div class="col col3">Lorem ipsum dolor</div> <div class="col col4">Lorem ipsum dolor</div> </div>
jsFiddle
I'm finding this has bitten me repeatedly over the years for both flex and grid, so I'm going to suggest the following:
* { min-width: 0; min-height: 0; }
and then just use min-width: auto
or min-height: auto
if you need that behaviour.
In fact, throw in box-sizing as well to make all layout more sane:
* { box-sizing: border-box; min-width: 0; min-height: 0; }
Does anyone know if there are any odd consequences? I've not encountered anything in several years of using a mix of the above. In fact, I can't think of any cases where I'd want to layout from content outwards to the flex/grid, rather than flex/grid inwards to the content --- and surely if they exist, they're rare. So this feels like a bad default. But maybe I'm missing something?
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With