Embedding a Graphic Instead of using <img src="...">

Discussion in 'HTML' started by David Elliott, Feb 18, 2004.

  1. Is there a way to encode a graphic and then embed it into an HTML File?


    Thanks,
    Dave
     
    David Elliott, Feb 18, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David Elliott

    Hywel Guest

    Hywel, Feb 18, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David Dorward, Feb 18, 2004
    #3
  4. David Elliott

    Steve Pugh Guest

    David Elliott <> wrote:

    >
    >Is there a way to encode a graphic and then embed it into an HTML File?


    Yes, see http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2397.html.

    Not supported by IE, so in practical terms useless for the web.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
     
    Steve Pugh, Feb 18, 2004
    #4
  5. David Elliott

    Marc Nadeau Guest

    Hywel a écrit:

    > In article <>,
    > am says...
    >>
    >> Is there a way to encode a graphic and then embed it into an HTML File?
    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >> Dave

    >
    > Not without some very dodgy table or <div> mark-up.
    >


    And should be restricted to _very_ small images since it produces huges html
    files.

    The gimp (Gnu Image Manipulation Program) can export graphics to html code
    like this.

    Bonne chance!

    --
    mv sco /dev/null
    #
    Marc Nadeau - La Pagerie - http://www.pagerie.com
     
    Marc Nadeau, Feb 19, 2004
    #5
  6. David Elliott wrote:

    >Is there a way to encode a graphic and then embed it into an HTML File?
    >
    >


    Here is a perl program for making data: url's. The one without the
    extension runs, the one with the extension is the source code.
    http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/cgi/data/
     
    Neil Marshall, Feb 19, 2004
    #6
  7. Toby A Inkster, Feb 19, 2004
    #7
  8. David Elliott

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <c10rfo$6ei$4$>,
    says...
    > David Elliott wrote:
    > > Is there a way to encode a graphic and then embed it into an HTML File?

    >
    > http://www.mozilla.org/quality/networking/docs/aboutdata.html
    > Works in Mozilla based browsers and recent versions of Opera.



    So what you are saying is that this will NOT work on 90% of the browsers
    being used.

    If losing less than 15% because of javascript is a bad idea, how can
    someone justify using something that doesn't work in 90% of the
    browsers?

    Someone is sending mixed signals....

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
     
    Whitecrest, Feb 19, 2004
    #8
  9. David Elliott

    Kris Guest

    In article <>,
    Whitecrest <> wrote:

    > > http://www.mozilla.org/quality/networking/docs/aboutdata.html
    > > Works in Mozilla based browsers and recent versions of Opera.

    >
    >
    > So what you are saying is that this will NOT work on 90% of the browsers
    > being used.
    >
    > If losing less than 15% because of javascript is a bad idea, how can
    > someone justify using something that doesn't work in 90% of the
    > browsers?


    I believe it was never said "don't use JavaScript" without adding "to
    rely your site on". I don't see why this does not go for this as well.
    Optional or badly supported technology? Don't rely on it.

    > Someone is sending mixed signals....


    I don't think he is. But I'll leave defense at that. I am only replying
    to prove the above point, not to stand up for someone who can perfectly
    stand up for himself if he thinks it is even worth to consider.

    --
    Kris
    <> (nl)
    <http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
     
    Kris, Feb 19, 2004
    #9
  10. David Elliott

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <4all.nl>,
    erlands says...
    > In article <>,
    > Whitecrest <> wrote:
    >
    > > > http://www.mozilla.org/quality/networking/docs/aboutdata.html
    > > > Works in Mozilla based browsers and recent versions of Opera.

    > >
    > >
    > > So what you are saying is that this will NOT work on 90% of the browsers
    > > being used.
    > >
    > > If losing less than 15% because of javascript is a bad idea, how can
    > > someone justify using something that doesn't work in 90% of the
    > > browsers?

    >
    > I believe it was never said "don't use JavaScript" without adding "to
    > rely your site on".....


    Your reading way too much into what I wrote, I was speaking in general
    terms, an observation of behaviour in the group if you will.

    David (and others that offered this solution) takes the stand, "don't
    use javascript". Why? Because 15% of the people browsing will not be
    able to use it for one reason or another. And give or take a percent or
    two, they are absolutely right.

    I was commenting on how interesting it was that someone with that
    viewpoint would offer a solution that would not work in 90% of the
    browsers out there, but did not offer a similar warning (or repetitive
    links) about how bad it would be and how you would be discriminating
    against millions... (Again I am speaking in general not of any
    individual.)

    The OP's problem has been answered. Several have offered a solution
    that will work on a percentage of browsers. Now they have to make a
    choice. The lady or the tiger. (That is a reference to a story about
    choices in case one was wondering.)


    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
     
    Whitecrest, Feb 19, 2004
    #10
  11. David Elliott

    Kris Guest

    In article <>,
    Whitecrest <> wrote:

    > > I believe it was never said "don't use JavaScript" without adding "to
    > > rely your site on".....

    >
    > Your reading way too much into what I wrote, I was speaking in general
    > terms, an observation of behaviour in the group if you will.


    No offense taken.

    > David (and others that offered this solution) takes the stand, "don't
    > use javascript".


    I concur. I remember them saying all the time "Don't rely on JavaScript
    to furfil critical site functionality". Same goes for CSS or any other
    optionality.

    > Why? Because 15% of the people browsing will not be
    > able to use it for one reason or another.


    Which does not need to be a problem.

    > And give or take a percent or
    > two, they are absolutely right.


    They are, assuming you mean what I repeated above.

    > I was commenting on how interesting it was that someone with that
    > viewpoint would offer a solution that would not work in 90% of the
    > browsers out there, but did not offer a similar warning (or repetitive
    > links) about how bad it would be and how you would be discriminating
    > against millions..


    Serving content in .avi format will also not work for millions. Often I
    find a link that also serves the same content as .mov and .mpeg, which
    helps out a lot.

    Sometimes, I add CSS in my print style sheets that only functions
    properly in some advanced browsers, like Opera and Mozilla. I realise
    that this is serving a marginal group, but also that it is not harming
    the others. I think that thought is key.

    >. (Again I am speaking in general not of any
    > individual.)


    It is the approach that has my interest, not the individuals connected
    to this thread.

    > The OP's problem has been answered. Several have offered a solution
    > that will work on a percentage of browsers. Now they have to make a
    > choice.


    It may not have to be a choice between one or the other. The advice
    people have given can help the OP to form a good perspective on what is
    possible and make effective combinations.

    > The lady or the tiger. (That is a reference to a story about
    > choices in case one was wondering.)


    I will Google for it, thanks. :)

    --
    Kris
    <> (nl)
    <http://www.cinnamon.nl/>
     
    Kris, Feb 19, 2004
    #11
  12. Whitecrest wrote:
    > If losing less than 15% because of javascript is a bad idea,


    Only if you _depend_ on it.

    > how can someone justify using something that doesn't work in 90% of the
    > browsers?


    I don't, and I don't suggest using it, hence the warning about browser
    support.

    It was offered as a technology that is technically interesting, if not one
    that is all that useful in the context of the www.

    --
    David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>
     
    David Dorward, Feb 19, 2004
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steve Richter

    <txt src= ...> equivalent of <img src= ...>

    Steve Richter, Feb 8, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,107
    Laurent Bugnion
    Feb 9, 2006
  2. ap
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    4,198
    Ryan Stewart
    Feb 15, 2005
  3. 50 SOMETHING GAL
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    401
  4. pheadxdll
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    3,699
    Neredbojias
    Jun 6, 2007
  5. Burak Gunay
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    71
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
    May 25, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page