Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > IE7 and images

Reply
Thread Tools

IE7 and images

 
 
Chaddy2222
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008
On Feb 3, 11:47*pm, Els <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Samuel van Laere wrote:
> > "rf" <(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
> >news:z_hpj.10692$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> *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.
>

And I say that the PHP the OP is useing for the images is crap and
should be got rid of in favor of a better script.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Els
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008
Samuel van Laere wrote:

> "Els" <(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
> news:1htnyp1q6pix2.1onaj8swktqii$(E-Mail Removed).. .
>>
>> 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.


Your Firefox is different from mine then. It says file size is 0
bytes. What does yours say?

> Any other toughts?


Faulty image?
Happens sometimes, I then just save it again in PhotoShop, which
usually clears it up.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Samuel van Laere
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008

"Els" <(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
news:l15inqfpv5ft$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>Firefox is different from mine then. It says file size is 0
> bytes. What does yours say?
>


I use Firefox 2.0.0.11
The image properties of the URL i've provided are:
Width: 600px
Height: 450px
Filesize: 24.88 KB (25476 bytes)



>> Any other toughts?

>
> Faulty image?
> Happens sometimes, I then just save it again in PhotoShop, which
> usually clears it up.


I can't tell, it doesn't work for you under FF and it does for me.
Who knows what happening right now.
I've not tested it with Opera yet.

Cheers,
Sam


 
Reply With Quote
 
Samuel van Laere
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008
Seems to be fixed now.
Just a single / must have been the problem, I hope.

Cheers,
Sam


 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:07:01 GMT
Travis Newbury scribed:

> 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.


IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks!
IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks!
IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks!
IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks!

Did I happen to mention that IE sucks?

Now that we got that straightened out, let me add that Firefox sucks, too,
although not as bad. Lots and lots of persistent bugs/errors which should
have been straightened out a long time ago. Hell, it doesn't even render
html and xhtml the same; there are (unique) bugs in its xml parser.

Opera's the best of the lot. They've done a lot of fixes over the past
year or so, surpassing Mozilla in overall excellence of operation. It
would be my default browser if I could just customize the top "bars"/chrome
the way I want to.

--
Neredbojias
Riches are their own reward.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Adrienne Boswell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008
Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias
<(E-Mail Removed)> writing in
news:Xns9A3966AD9A08Cnanopandaneredbojias@85.214.9 0.236:

> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 03 Feb 2008
> 12:07:01 GMT Travis Newbury scribed:
>
>> 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.

>
> IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE
> sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE
> sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE
> sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE
> sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks! IE sucks!
>
> Did I happen to mention that IE sucks?


And I'll add another hundred or so IE sucks!

>
> Now that we got that straightened out, let me add that Firefox sucks,
> too, although not as bad. Lots and lots of persistent bugs/errors
> which should have been straightened out a long time ago. Hell, it
> doesn't even render html and xhtml the same; there are (unique) bugs
> in its xml parser.
>
> Opera's the best of the lot. They've done a lot of fixes over the
> past year or so, surpassing Mozilla in overall excellence of
> operation. It would be my default browser if I could just customize
> the top "bars"/chrome the way I want to.
>


Opera is my default browser. One of the reasons is I CAN customize it
anyway I want. Have you checked out setups and menus available at Opera
Community? The only thing I really miss is Opera has no Skypilot or
Pimp Mozilla skin - I like those.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

 
Reply With Quote
 
Allodoxaphobia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:56:32 +0100, Els wrote:
> Samuel van Laere wrote:
>> "Els" <(E-Mail Removed)> schreef:
>>>
>>> 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.

>
> Your Firefox is different from mine then. It says file size is 0
> bytes. What does yours say?


I see no 'image' in konqueror, Firefox, Opera, or wine/IE6.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Els
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008
Samuel van Laere wrote:

>> Firefox is different from mine then. It says file size is 0
>> bytes. What does yours say?

>
> I use Firefox 2.0.0.11
> The image properties of the URL i've provided are:
> Width: 600px
> Height: 450px
> Filesize: 24.88 KB (25476 bytes)


Just to be sure, you provided this url:
http://www.oukje.nl/fotoalbum/foto.php?id=25

You must be talking about an entirely different image though.
The only image I'm seeing (still!) is the surfboard bottom left.
To be 100% exact, this image:
http://www.oukje.nl/afbeeldingen/bs.gif

I seriously doubt this one should have been 600 x 450px though, as it
wouldn't fit in the sidebar if it were that wide.

This is also the very image I did see in IE7, but which was not
available in IE6, when you had the CSS disabled still.
(it is available in IE6 now)

There is no other image on the page in either IE6, IE7, or Firefox
here.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
cwdjrxyz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008
On Feb 3, 5:17 am, "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.
> 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?


I don't know that this is bad fault with IE7. The main technical
fault with IE7 is that it is just a minor update of IE6 and can not
yet support xhtml served properly as application/xhtml+xml, while
nearly all widely used recent browsers including Firefox, Opera,
Seamonkey, Safari, etc do, and most have for quite a while. Either the
people at Microsoft can not or do not want to write the code for a
browser that supports modern W3C standards. IE7 was outdated the
moment it was released, and it was an instant antique from the
technical standpoint. Hopefully, now that Vista is out after much
delay, they will bring their browser up to date, but don't hold your
breath. But there is no accounting for taste. Many users of browsers
have no interest in code at all and are more concerned with the chrome
or other bells and whistles - and in this area, IE7 may have the most
to offer. At least many more large commercial sites have learned that
there are browsers other than IE and Netscape(no longer being
supported), so you do not get instructions to update your browser to
IE or Netscape or a complete lock-out for other browsers so much
anymore, often when the site could work on Firefox or Opera for
example. Of course this sometimes could be overcome by setting the
browser to report itself as IE7 to avoid lock-out.

> Or shouldn't Firefox display the image as small as possible?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Els
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-03-2008
Els wrote:
> Samuel van Laere wrote:
>
>> I use Firefox 2.0.0.11
>> The image properties of the URL i've provided are:
>> Width: 600px
>> Height: 450px
>> Filesize: 24.88 KB (25476 bytes)

>
> Just to be sure, you provided this url:
> http://www.oukje.nl/fotoalbum/foto.php?id=25


> There is no other image on the page in either IE6, IE7, or Firefox
> here.


Strange thing (in both IE and FF): if I go to another page, then go to
the gallery, and then click the first image, I do see the large
version. At exactly that URL. But accessing the URL directly (in IE7
and FF) does not show anything in the main part of the page. Blank
white space only.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
IE7 and IE7 64-bit in Vista 64-bit 007 Windows 64bit 1 10-28-2008 08:46 PM
How do I setup a 32 bit IE7 since I'm using a 64 Bit IE7 =?Utf-8?B?RXVnZW5l?= Windows 64bit 3 05-06-2007 01:18 PM
Images problem in new IE7 service pack 2 er.deepaksharma@gmail.com Computer Support 1 04-06-2007 11:39 AM
IE7 on XP vs IE7 on Vista Jeff Louella HTML 9 03-02-2007 02:25 AM
IE7 not downloading all images? Tom Computer Information 3 01-05-2007 12:39 AM



Advertisments