«

I just found out that at IE7 can't handle
image containing empty width and height tags.
It just displays the image very smal like 1x1 or so.
Firefox ignores missing values and displays the image just the way it should
be displayed.

Does it prove yet again the IE7 sucks?
Or shouldn't Firefox display the image as small as possible?

Cheers,
Sam

"Samuel van Laere" <webkluns__at__hotmail__dot__com> wrote:

> I just found out that at IE7 can't handle
> image containing empty width and height tags.

I assume you mean you had height and width attributes where the values were
empty strings. Nothing in the HTML specification suggests that is allowed.

> It just displays the image very smal like 1x1 or so.
> Firefox ignores missing values and displays the image just the way it
> should be displayed.
>
> Does it prove yet again the IE7 sucks?
> Or shouldn't Firefox display the image as small as possible?

Neither. It just shows that they attempt to error correct in different ways.

--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/

"David Dorward" <> schreef in bericht
news:fo48m2$dkm$...
>
> I assume you mean you had height and width attributes where the values
> were
> empty strings. Nothing in the HTML specification suggests that is allowed.
>

Yes I ment attributes and yes they where empty;
my php script stopt working, at used to pass the images dimensions in a
variabele
got to work that one out, for now I just removed the width and height
attributes.

>
> Neither. It just shows that they attempt to error correct in different
> ways.
>

Can't believe its considered a error, though I believe you.

Thx David.

Cheers,
Sam

"Samuel van Laere" <webkluns__at__hotmail__dot__com> wrote in message
news:47a5a2ad$0$31276$4a ll.nl...

>I just found out that at IE7 can't handle
> image containing empty width and height tags.

Please provide a URL to a *valid* page that demonstrate this.

--
Richard.

On Feb 3, 6:17 am, "Samuel van Laere"
<webkluns__at__hotmail__dot__com> wrote:
> Does it prove yet again the IE7 sucks?

IE Doesn't suck. You just don't happen to like it or the way ti
works. Others love it. You know blowing out one candle does not make
the other burn brighter.

On Feb 3, 11:07*pm, Travis Newbury <TravisNewb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 6:17 am, "Samuel van Laere"
>
> <webkluns__at__hotmail__dot__com> wrote:
> > Does it prove yet again the IE7 sucks?
>
> IE Doesn't suck. *You just don't happen to like it or the way ti
> works. *Others love it. *You know blowing out one candle does not make
> the other burn brighter.
While I think FF renders pages better then IE in a lot of cases (it)
FF does seam to be very slow at rendering.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

"rf" <> schreef in bericht
news:z_hpj.10692$...
> Please provide a URL to a *valid* page that demonstrate this.
>

Here is a valid URL Richard:
http://www.oukje.nl/fotoalbum/foto.php?id=25

under IE7 is displays a small block.
under IE6 is doesn't display at all so it seems.
I've disabled all CSS on the pages that show the problem, so we know its not
related to that.

cheers,
Sam

"rf" <> schreef in bericht
news:z_hpj.10692$...
> Please provide a URL to a *valid* page that demonstrate this.
>

Though I must admitt that Tidy believes theres a missing DIV
while the W3C validator doesn't mention it at all.
I believe Tidy is correct and the W3C validator somehow misses it?
But that DIV isn't the problem of the image.

cheers,
Sam

Samuel van Laere wrote:

> "rf" <> schreef in bericht
> news:z_hpj.10692$...
>> Please provide a URL to a *valid* page that demonstrate this.
>>
>
> Here is a valid URL Richard:
> http://www.oukje.nl/fotoalbum/foto.php?id=25
>
> under IE7 is displays a small block.
> under IE6 is doesn't display at all so it seems.

In IE6 the image itself is absent, but the block for it is the same
size in IE7 as it is in Firefox. You're saying the picture should be
larger than 88 x 97px? Weird enough, Firefox says the file size is 0
bytes, IE7 says file size not available.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/

"Els" <> schreef in bericht
news:1htnyp1q6pix2.1onaj8swktqii$... .
>
> In IE6 the image itself is absent, but the block for it is the same
> size in IE7 as it is in Firefox. You're saying the picture should be
> larger than 88 x 97px? Weird enough, Firefox says the file size is 0
> bytes, IE7 says file size not available.
>

Strange yes.
Under Firefox it just displays fine and also the image properties are
correct.
Any other toughts?

cheers,
Sam