Can this be done?

[jake]

[snip]

What's the advantage of the iframe in comparison with frames?

Well, first of all, you don't have to set up a frameset page. You can
insert the iframe right in to an existing page. Second, it was easy to
insert the necessary lines for the iframe element in my custom DTD;
much more easy than it would have been to modify it to hold the
frameset defenitions. Other than that, I don't think there are any
advantages of frames. It has the same disadvantages though .

Actually, if the design (and I would include any necessary additional
pages as part of that) is well thought through, there really shouldn't
be any problem with using I-frames. Certainly there shouldn't be any
problems[1] with using a single I-frame on a page.

Assuming the use of a single I-frame on a page, what would you see as
being a show-stopper?

[1] Apart from the fact that some *very* old browsers don't support
them, and old browsers support them in a non-standard way (e.g. 4.7
Netscapes opens the content in a new window.)

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

Perhaps if you opened up your security a bit it might help us to help you on
this. I tried to view that iframed page by itself and got something else, I
presume a page telling me off for trying to do that

I don't really like people browsing through my directories. If they try, I
present them with a page that tells them to find what they want through the
'find' form or just throught the menu or site map.

But the problem is not confined to this art work page. If you take a look at

Looking at the CSS... scares me a bit. You use things like display:
table-cell,

Do I? Must be a residu of something I tried and otherwise wouldn't work at
all.
But it's not the cause, as it happens to all images all over my site.

which IE simply does not understand.

Therefore I hid it from IE, using the child selector. I feed IE with
display:inline;

It is probably error
correcting this to inline, which is why you get them all scrunched down into
one line-height (co-incidentally between 1 and 2 em ) until a hover (or
in my case a change font size) sets display: block; Purely guesswork at this
stage.

Thank you for the guess work. One never knows what it might turn up. But, no,
this is not the cause. This 'table-cel' thing is only applied to the art work
page. None of my other pages get that css. But they do render those images in a
faulty and odd way. Annoying, isn't it?

But again, thanks for trying to help. Any other idea's?

BTW why use dispaly: table cell? You are merely telling the DOM that this is
a table cell, exactly as if you had use <td>. Sometimes extraction of
presentation from content can be taken too far.

Yeah, I know. This art works page is driving me nuts. What I did, is just try
which value for the display property worked out best when viewd in Opera (and
FireFox). Came up with table-cell, knowing it is bogus since there is no table
in sight anywhere. Still using it, naughty me

I've been thinking to take the page down, but then again, I like displaying my
art work. So it's least bad of two bads (down or this).

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

Barbara de Zoete wrote:
Nico Schuyt wrote:

[snip]

What's the advantage of the iframe in comparison with frames?

Well, first of all, you don't have to set up a frameset page. You can insert
the iframe right in to an existing page. Second, it was easy to insert the
necessary lines for the iframe element in my custom DTD; much more easy than
it would have been to modify it to hold the frameset defenitions. Other than
that, I don't think there are any advantages of frames. It has the same
disadvantages though .

Actually, if the design (and I would include any necessary additional pages as
part of that) is well thought through, there really shouldn't be any problem
with using I-frames. Certainly there shouldn't be any problems[1] with using a
single I-frame on a page.

Assuming the use of a single I-frame on a page, what would you see as being a
show-stopper?

I'm not about to enter another 'frames vs. no frames' discussion. Google is your
friend.


--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[rf]

I don't really like people browsing through my directories. If they try, I
present them with a page that tells them to find what they want through the
'find' form or just throught the menu or site map.

Oh, Come On my dear. Browsing though your directory? I did nothing of the
sort. I found the src attribute for iframe and pasted it into my browser. I
wouldn't call that "browsing through your directory". In any case what am I
going to find if I *do* browse. All of the things my browser has probably
downloaded anyway

I notice you didn't stop me from going to /stylesheets/whatever.css to look
at the css Ah, but then again I used view-source: to do that

But again, thanks for trying to help. Any other idea's?

Yes. Something is causing it. Remove the CSS bit by bit until it stops. The
bit you just removed is the cause. Not rocket science .

 

[jake]

Barbara de Zoete wrote:
Nico Schuyt wrote: [snip]

What's the advantage of the iframe in comparison with frames?

Well, first of all, you don't have to set up a frameset page. You
can insert the iframe right in to an existing page. Second, it was
easy to insert the necessary lines for the iframe element in my
custom DTD; much more easy than it would have been to modify it to
hold the frameset defenitions. Other than that, I don't think
there are any advantages of frames. It has the same disadvantages though .

Actually, if the design (and I would include any necessary additional
pages as part of that) is well thought through, there really
shouldn't be any problem with using I-frames. Certainly there
shouldn't be any problems[1] with using a single I-frame on a page.

Assuming the use of a single I-frame on a page, what would you see as
being a show-stopper?

I'm not about to enter another 'frames vs. no frames' discussion.
Google is your friend.

Nope. Never mentioned 'frames vs. no-frames'.

Anyway, I assume this is not an area where you want to claim any
expertise -- and that's fine by me, really.

regards.

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

Oh, Come On my dear. Browsing though your directory? I did nothing of the
sort. I found the src attribute for iframe and pasted it into my browser. I
wouldn't call that "browsing through your directory".

I'm not sure what you did and what it is you got then. The source pages are
available without restrictions:

<iframe src="i_lijst.html" id="show" name="show">
<a href="wandeling.html">De eerste tekening van de beschikbare serie:
Wandeling.</a>
</iframe>

<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/i_lijst.html> and
<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/wandeling.html>

The first one being the page that is called in the i-frame when the containing
page is requested first. That page is merely telling the visitor what s/he can
expect. What thumbnails are and what they're for, how to browes through all the
available pictures, that they might want to try and view the images while their
viewport is on full screen mode and that there is a slide show available which
shows them the images one by one without them having to navigate through them,
if they prefer that.
The second page is a link to the very first of the pages with images. It is
there for the frameless browsers, so they can navigate through the images one by
one using plain text links.

In any case what am I
going to find if I *do* browse. All of the things my browser has probably
downloaded anyway

Not really. There are a few things in my directories that are not for general
public use. There is no harm done if anyone ever found them, but I'm not putting
them on public display on purpose either.

I notice you didn't stop me from going to /stylesheets/whatever.css to look
at the css Ah, but then again I used view-source: to do that

I don't mean to hide anything that _is_ there for public display. Be it files or
source. So you're forgiven the fact that you pulled up my css files ;-)

Yes. Something is causing it. Remove the CSS bit by bit until it stops. The
bit you just removed is the cause. Not rocket science .

<sigh /> I thought this silly and buggy behaviour of images might have a known
cause. Or rather hoped than thought.

Oh well, thanks for your input.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

Nope. Never mentioned 'frames vs. no-frames'.

Anyway, I assume this is not an area where you want to claim any expertise --
and that's fine by me, really.

Now I remember why I had you killfiled for a long time.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[rf]

I'm not sure what you did and what it is you got then. The source pages are
available without restrictions:

I think this is my bad. I saw scrollbars and looked for an iframe. The
thumbnails are, of course, in a div. Not being able to understand what I was
looking at led me to the wrong conclusion :-(

Oh well, thanks for your input.

FWIW I downloaded the page. It works fine on my local file system. Dunno

 

[rf]

Now I remember why I had you killfiled for a long time.

I just recently re-discovered this dickhead over in ahc. Even given full
benifit of the doubt and spoken to politely he still comes back with an
arsewipe comment.

Worthy of selective breeding IMHO. Better off permanently killfiled, as I
have now done.

 

[Tonnie]

<sigh /> I thought this silly and buggy behaviour of images might have a
known cause. Or rather hoped than thought.

Hi Barbara,

What if you ad 'width' and 'height' to the images?

Not tested.

 

[Tonnie]

Hi Barbara,

What if you ad 'width' and 'height' to the images?

Not tested.

In the http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html page.

The other one has height and width, can't figure out what it is that
triggers the images to apear small.



Tonnie

 

[Spartanicus]

Came up with table-cell, knowing it is bogus since there is no table
in sight anywhere.

Nor is there any reason why there should be, ignore rf on this issue, he
doesn't properly understand html and css.

 

[Els]

might have a known cause. Or rather hoped than thought.

I don't know the cause, but this might help you to find it: In
IE6 with JavaScript (and all scripting of any sort) turned off,
they don't get larger on hover. When asking for the properties,
they say the images are 30px high.

The only JavaScript on your page however, is by Google Ads.
Just a hunch, but if you take those ads off - does the problem
with the images persist?

FWIW: I don't see the Google Ads in IE6 at all. Apparently they
depend on JavaScript?

 

[Els]

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

[snipped a bit]

<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html> (a
page on gliding) it happens there too. It happens to all
images, all over my site.

Therefore I hid it from IE, using the child selector. I
feed IE with display:inline;

Thank you for the guess work. One never knows what it might
turn up. But, no, this is not the cause.

Another guess: the img-container that's around the images on
that mentioned page, has line-height:125% in the CSS styles.
That in combination with display:inline on the image might make
IE stick to the line-height? (No idea really!)

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

I just recently re-discovered this dickhead over in ahc. Even given full
benifit of the doubt and spoken to politely he still comes back with an
arsewipe comment.

Worthy of selective breeding IMHO. Better off permanently killfiled, as I
have now done.

My guess too. Every once in a while I clean out my killfile. Everybody can learn
and sometimes somebody who was in, ends up okay after a while.
Most of the times though, I start putting them right back in again, not even
remembering some of them being in there before.


--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

In the http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html page.

The other one has height and width, can't figure out what it is that triggers
the images to apear small.

Me neither


--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

Nor is there any reason why there should be, ignore rf on this issue, he
doesn't properly understand html and css.

I am not sure why rf would deserve getting this remark.

None of us know all, some contribute continuous flow of bull shit, and a very
few deserve real credit for their creative and valuable contributions. Most of
us are just human and try our bests participating here.

I think rf is only human, like I am.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

I don't know the cause, but this might help you to find it: In
IE6 with JavaScript (and all scripting of any sort) turned off,
they don't get larger on hover. When asking for the properties,
they say the images are 30px high.

The only JavaScript on your page however, is by Google Ads.
Just a hunch, but if you take those ads off - does the problem
with the images persist?

Gawd, I hope not. I'll test for it.

FWIW: I don't see the Google Ads in IE6 at all. Apparently they
depend on JavaScript?

Yes, they do :-( But that's sort of okay, since <div class="tongue-in-cheek">99%
of the users have javascript enabled, so what's your problem</div> <hides /> )


--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

[snipped a bit]

<http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html> (a
page on gliding) it happens there too. It happens to all
images, all over my site.

Therefore I hid it from IE, using the child selector. I
feed IE with display:inline;

Thank you for the guess work. One never knows what it might
turn up. But, no, this is not the cause.

Another guess: the img-container that's around the images on
that mentioned page, has line-height:125% in the CSS styles.
That in combination with display:inline on the image might make
IE stick to the line-height? (No idea really!)

Another test to perform. Thank you Els.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

I think this is my bad. I saw scrollbars and looked for an iframe. The
thumbnails are, of course, in a div. Not being able to understand what I was
looking at led me to the wrong conclusion :-(


FWIW I downloaded the page. It works fine on my local file system. Dunno

So I should just write a notification then:

'Pages best viewed locally on machine rf'

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.
| weblog | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/_private/weblog.html |
| webontwerp | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/webontwerp.html |
|zweefvliegen | http://home.wanadoo.nl/b.de.zoete/html/vliegen.html |
`-------------------------------------------------- --<--@ ------------'