You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
When used together with bootstrap.css the datepicker lost it's "hover" and "active" styles, and got a wrong font assigned. When I removed bootstrap.css, everything was fine.
Suspected reason: the generated html for the calendar widget does not contain an explicit <tbody> tag, but the datepicker.css does reference it. When used together with other css which has direct definitions for table styles without <tbody>, those may accidentially overwrite the ones in datepicker.css.
While the use of <tbody> is optional, imho you should maintain consistency between html and css and not address a <tbody> when you don't have it.
After removing the obsolete tags from the datepicker css it did function nicely together with bootstrap.css.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
arminlinder
changed the title
Bug: Datepicker looses active and hover if used together with Bootdtrap due to css glitch
Bug: Datepicker looses active and hover effect if used together with Bootdtrap due to css glitch
Jul 3, 2018
When used together with bootstrap.css the datepicker lost it's "hover" and "active" styles, and got a wrong font assigned. When I removed bootstrap.css, everything was fine.
Suspected reason: the generated html for the calendar widget does not contain an explicit <tbody> tag, but the datepicker.css does reference it. When used together with other css which has direct definitions for table styles without <tbody>, those may accidentially overwrite the ones in datepicker.css.
While the use of <tbody> is optional, imho you should maintain consistency between html and css and not address a <tbody> when you don't have it.
After removing the obsolete tags from the datepicker css it did function nicely together with bootstrap.css.
Browsers: Firefox 52.9.0 (ESR), Chrome 67.0.3396.99
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: