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
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Scrollspy broken when using non-list-based navbar markup #19736
changed the title [-]Scrollspy appears not to work when using simplified navbar implementation from documentation[/-][+]Scrollspy broken when using non-list-based navbar markup[/+]on Apr 14, 2016
If there is not enough content height in the page to make the target considered as active,when you choose the last item, this will not allow the content to reach the top of the page, and you will never get the white font to mark it as target, because it is not an active target. The last item will not be marked as active if there is no extra space to place the last item content in the top.
Activity
cvrebert commentedon Apr 14, 2016
@secondstreetmedia Try JS Bin instead of JSFiddle.
secondstreetmedia commentedon Apr 14, 2016
@cvrebert Edited initial post, replacing JSFiddle links with JS Bin links.
cvrebert commentedon Apr 14, 2016
Reposting to trigger validator: https://jsbin.com/viyexurala/edit?html,css,js,output
[-]Scrollspy appears not to work when using simplified navbar implementation from documentation[/-][+]Scrollspy broken when using non-list-based navbar markup[/+]Manuellama commentedon Jun 4, 2016
I noticed this too in https://jsbin.com/dekakunuha/edit?html,css,js,output link:
If there is not enough content height in the page to make the target considered as active,when you choose the last item, this will not allow the content to reach the top of the page, and you will never get the white font to mark it as target, because it is not an active target. The last item will not be marked as active if there is no extra space to place the last item content in the top.
I added extra content after the last item so you can see it here.
https://jsbin.com/qapizoligo/edit?html,css,output
pvdlg commentedon Jan 21, 2017
X-ref #21807