«

In article <>,
Martin <> wrote:

> I'm using the following to display a picture on a page and to provide
> a link that will show the same picture - enlarged - in a second
> window. The problem is, the "enlarged" view is sized at whatever the
> original picture is. Is there some way I can specify the size of the
> enlarged one (kind of like I'm specifying the size of the first one
> (width=400 in this example))?
>
>
> <a href="APR_0001.jpg" target="_blank" title="Click here to see bigger
> picture">
> <img src="APR_0001.jpg" width=400></a>
>

If you are using the very same picture for both, you can achieve it by
choosing a smaller value for the width and height of the img on the page
that the above is on.

If you are wanting to keep the 400px width for the pic on the page but
make the same image appear bigger on the target page, you need to make
up another html file and in it give the instruction to make it bigger.
Thus on the referring page you might have something like:

<a href="enlarged.html" target="_blank">
<img src="APR_0001.jpg" width="400" height="200" alt="..."></a>

and in the enlarged.html file you would have:

<img src="APR_0001.jpg" width="800" height="400" alt="...">

It is not generally good practice to use the same image for both nor to
display a picture beyond its natural size.

You might reduce the 400px wide image in an image software program and
save it as a file first. This would get it sharp and also reduce its
file size nicely. You then could use the 400px to be the enlargements.

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

> If you are using the very same picture for both, you can achieve it by
> choosing a smaller value for the width and height of the img on the
> page that the above is on.
>
> If you are wanting to keep the 400px width for the pic on the page
> but make the same image appear bigger on the target page, you need to
> make up another html file and in it give the instruction to make it
> bigger.

Resizing via HTML height and width values is never a good idea, dorayme.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista

In article <481510a5$0$7068$>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
> > If you are using the very same picture for both, you can achieve it by
> > choosing a smaller value for the width and height of the img on the
> > page that the above is on.
> >
> > If you are wanting to keep the 400px width for the pic on the page
> > but make the same image appear bigger on the target page, you need to
> > make up another html file and in it give the instruction to make it
> > bigger.
>
> Resizing via HTML height and width values is never a good idea, dorayme.

It is strange what you chose to quote of me. I suppose it would cast me
in too good a light to have left in my:

"It is not generally good practice to use the same image for both nor to
display a picture beyond its natural size."

from quite a short post?

You are escalating my "not generally good practice" to "never a good
idea" without argument. Since you do not give any argument why it is
*never* ever a good idea, I will not proceed further. At least we agree
about what I said, that is common ground, you just going further and
more fundamentalist and absolutist and unbendingly as do so many of your
mates here.

Good for you. The more I hear this sort of thing, the more I am happy to
be me.

--
dorayme

In article <Xns9A8DC59F0930Eneredbojiasnano@85.214.90.236>,
Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/fliam.php> wrote:

> On 27 Apr 2008, dorayme <> wrote:
>
> >> In article <481510a5$0$7068$>,
> >> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:
> >> Resizing via HTML height and width values is never a good idea, dorayme.
> >
> > It is strange what you chose to quote of me. I suppose it would cast me
> > in too good a light to have left in my:
> >
> > "It is not generally good practice to use the same image for both nor to
> > display a picture beyond its natural size."
> >
> > from quite a short post?
> >
> > You are escalating my "not generally good practice" to "never a good
> > idea" without argument. Since you do not give any argument why it is
> > *never* ever a good idea, I will not proceed further. At least we agree
> > about what I said, that is common ground, you just going further and
> > more fundamentalist and absolutist and unbendingly as do so many of your
> > mates here.
> >
> > Good for you. The more I hear this sort of thing, the more I am happy to
> > be me.
>
> I am happy you are you, too. Hell, it could have been me...

Or me! So we are both relieved. <g>

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> If you are using the very same picture for both, you can achieve it by
>>> choosing a smaller value for the width and height of the img on the
>>> page that the above is on.
>>>
>>> If you are wanting to keep the 400px width for the pic on the page
>>> but make the same image appear bigger on the target page, you need to
>>> make up another html file and in it give the instruction to make it
>>> bigger.
>>
>> Resizing via HTML height and width values is never a good idea, dorayme.
>
> It is strange what you chose to quote of me. I suppose it would cast me
> in too good a light to have left in my:
>
> "It is not generally good practice to use the same image for both nor to
> display a picture beyond its natural size."

'Cept your first four paragraphs instruct the OP how to do what we both
know is wrong. That's why I responded as I did.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista

In article <481547c7$0$30487$>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
> > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <> wrote:
> >
> >> dorayme wrote:
> >>> If you are using the very same picture for both, you can achieve it by
> >>> choosing a smaller value for the width and height of the img on the
> >>> page that the above is on.
> >>>
> >>> If you are wanting to keep the 400px width for the pic on the page
> >>> but make the same image appear bigger on the target page, you need to
> >>> make up another html file and in it give the instruction to make it
> >>> bigger.
> >>
> >> Resizing via HTML height and width values is never a good idea, dorayme.
> >
> > It is strange what you chose to quote of me. I suppose it would cast me
> > in too good a light to have left in my:
> >
> > "It is not generally good practice to use the same image for both nor to
> > display a picture beyond its natural size."
>
> 'Cept your first four paragraphs instruct the OP how to do what we both
> know is wrong. That's why I responded as I did.

First, imo, it is not always wrong. There are some situations where this
is too severe a description. Where the file size is very small, where
the difference in px size is not that great, where the quality does not
really matter.

Second, instructing is not recommending especially when it comes with
the rider I gave. Please remember that not all folk are like Bergamot
who only reads 10% of my words nor like Richard who reads none (but boy
o boy can that man drink! His kf is littered with empty tinnies from our
drinking binges). I expect or at least hope folk will read all and not
some of a short post and very short paragraphs.

Perhaps you have the idea that a feller will come here, read part of one
post, see one thing and go off with part of an idea. I have the idea
that if he does, bugger him. If he does not and stays curious and asks
and questions and we all chew the fat together, everything will come out
hunky dory.

I am sorry to be ever the optimist! I should not be so harshly punished
for it. You try making out on a strange planet! <g>

--
dorayme