D
David Elliott
Is there a way to encode a graphic and then embed it into an HTML File?
Thanks,
Dave
Thanks,
Dave
H
Hywel
Not without some very dodgy table or <div> mark-up.
D
David Dorward
David said:
http://www.mozilla.org/quality/networking/docs/aboutdata.html
Works in Mozilla based browsers and recent versions of Opera.
S
Steve Pugh
David Elliott said:
Yes, see http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2397.html.
Not supported by IE, so in practical terms useless for the web.
Steve
M
Marc Nadeau
Hywel a écrit:
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!
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!
N
Neil Marshall
David said:
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/
T
Toby A Inkster
David said:
It should be noted that Opera 7.1x often crashed on some well-formed
"data:" URLs. Opera 7.2x fixes the problem.
W
Whitecrest
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....
K
Kris
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?[/QUOTE]
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.
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.
W
Whitecrest
I believe it was never said "don't use JavaScript" without adding "to
rely your site on".....[/QUOTE]
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.)
K
Kris
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.[/QUOTE]
No offense taken.
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.
Which does not need to be a problem.
They are, assuming you mean what I repeated above.
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.
It is the approach that has my interest, not the individuals connected
to this thread.
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.
I will Google for it, thanks.
D
David Dorward
Whitecrest said:
Only if you _depend_ on it.
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.