IE7 and images

  • Thread starter Samuel van Laere
  • Start date
S

Samuel van Laere

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

Cheers,
Sam
 
D

David Dorward

Samuel van Laere said:
I just found out that at IE7 can't handle
image containing empty width and height tags.

I assume you mean you had height and width attributes where the values were
empty strings. Nothing in the HTML specification suggests that is allowed.
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?
Or shouldn't Firefox display the image as small as possible?

Neither. It just shows that they attempt to error correct in different ways.
 
S

Samuel van Laere

David Dorward said:
I assume you mean you had height and width attributes where the values
were
empty strings. Nothing in the HTML specification suggests that is allowed.

Yes I ment attributes and yes they where empty;
my php script stopt working, at used to pass the images dimensions in a
variabele
got to work that one out, for now I just removed the width and height
attributes.
Neither. It just shows that they attempt to error correct in different
ways.

Can't believe its considered a error, though I believe you.

Thx David.

Cheers,
Sam
 
T

Travis Newbury

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.
 
C

Chaddy2222

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.
While I think FF renders pages better then IE in a lot of cases (it)
FF does seam to be very slow at rendering.
 
S

Samuel van Laere

rf said:
Please provide a URL to a *valid* page that demonstrate this.

Though I must admitt that Tidy believes theres a missing DIV
while the W3C validator doesn't mention it at all.
I believe Tidy is correct and the W3C validator somehow misses it?
But that DIV isn't the problem of the image.

cheers,
Sam
 
E

Els

Samuel said:
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.
 
S

Samuel van Laere

Els said:
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.
Any other toughts?

cheers,
Sam
 
C

Chaddy2222

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.
 
E

Els

Samuel said:
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.
 
S

Samuel van Laere

Els said:
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)


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
 
S

Samuel van Laere

Seems to be fixed now.
Just a single / must have been the problem, I hope.

Cheers,
Sam
 
N

Neredbojias

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

Adrienne Boswell

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 03 Feb 2008
12:07:01 GMT Travis Newbury scribed:


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.
 
A

Allodoxaphobia

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.
 
E

Els

Samuel said:
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.
 
C

cwdjrxyz

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.
 
E

Els

Els said:
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.
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,769
Messages
2,569,579
Members
45,053
Latest member
BrodieSola

Latest Threads

Top