IE7 and images

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Samuel van Laere, Feb 3, 2008.

  1. 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
     
    Samuel van Laere, Feb 3, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Samuel van Laere" <webkluns__at__hotmail__dot__com> wrote:

    > 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.

    --
    David Dorward
    http://dorward.me.uk/
    http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
     
    David Dorward, Feb 3, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "David Dorward" <> schreef in bericht
    news:fo48m2$dkm$...
    >
    > 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
     
    Samuel van Laere, Feb 3, 2008
    #3
  4. Samuel van Laere

    rf Guest

    "Samuel van Laere" <webkluns__at__hotmail__dot__com> wrote in message
    news:47a5a2ad$0$31276$4all.nl...

    >I just found out that at IE7 can't handle
    > image containing empty width and height tags.


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

    --
    Richard.
     
    rf, Feb 3, 2008
    #4
  5. On Feb 3, 6:17 am, "Samuel van Laere"
    <webkluns__at__hotmail__dot__com> wrote:
    > 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.
     
    Travis Newbury, Feb 3, 2008
    #5
  6. Samuel van Laere

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    On Feb 3, 11:07 pm, Travis Newbury <> wrote:
    > On Feb 3, 6:17 am, "Samuel van Laere"
    >
    > <webkluns__at__hotmail__dot__com> wrote:
    > > 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.

    While I think FF renders pages better then IE in a lot of cases (it)
    FF does seam to be very slow at rendering.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
     
    Chaddy2222, Feb 3, 2008
    #6
  7. "rf" <> schreef in bericht
    news:z_hpj.10692$...
    > Please provide a URL to a *valid* page that demonstrate this.
    >


    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.
    I've disabled all CSS on the pages that show the problem, so we know its not
    related to that.

    cheers,
    Sam
     
    Samuel van Laere, Feb 3, 2008
    #7
  8. "rf" <> schreef in bericht
    news:z_hpj.10692$...
    > 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
     
    Samuel van Laere, Feb 3, 2008
    #8
  9. Samuel van Laere

    Els Guest

    Samuel van Laere wrote:

    > "rf" <> schreef in bericht
    > news:z_hpj.10692$...
    >> Please provide a URL to a *valid* page that demonstrate this.
    >>

    >
    > 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.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
     
    Els, Feb 3, 2008
    #9
  10. "Els" <> schreef in bericht
    news:1htnyp1q6pix2.1onaj8swktqii$...
    >
    > 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
     
    Samuel van Laere, Feb 3, 2008
    #10
  11. Samuel van Laere

    Chaddy2222 Guest

    On Feb 3, 11:47 pm, Els <> wrote:
    > Samuel van Laere wrote:
    > > "rf" <> schreef in bericht
    > >news:z_hpj.10692$...
    > >>  Please provide a URL to a *valid* page that demonstrate this.

    >
    > > 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.
    >

    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.
    --
    Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
     
    Chaddy2222, Feb 3, 2008
    #11
  12. Samuel van Laere

    Els Guest

    Samuel van Laere wrote:

    > "Els" <> schreef in bericht
    > news:1htnyp1q6pix2.1onaj8swktqii$...
    >>
    >> 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.


    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.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
     
    Els, Feb 3, 2008
    #12
  13. "Els" <> schreef in bericht
    news:l15inqfpv5ft$...
    >
    >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)



    >> Any other toughts?

    >
    > 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
     
    Samuel van Laere, Feb 3, 2008
    #13
  14. Seems to be fixed now.
    Just a single / must have been the problem, I hope.

    Cheers,
    Sam
     
    Samuel van Laere, Feb 3, 2008
    #14
  15. Samuel van Laere

    Neredbojias Guest

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

    > On Feb 3, 6:17 am, "Samuel van Laere"
    > <webkluns__at__hotmail__dot__com> wrote:
    >> 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.


    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.

    --
    Neredbojias
    Riches are their own reward.
     
    Neredbojias, Feb 3, 2008
    #15
  16. Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Neredbojias
    <> writing in
    news:Xns9A3966AD9A08Cnanopandaneredbojias@85.214.90.236:

    > Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 03 Feb 2008
    > 12:07:01 GMT Travis Newbury scribed:
    >
    >> On Feb 3, 6:17 am, "Samuel van Laere"
    >> <webkluns__at__hotmail__dot__com> wrote:
    >>> 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.

    >
    > 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.

    --
    Adrienne Boswell at Home
    Arbpen Web Site Design Services
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
    Please respond to the group so others can share
     
    Adrienne Boswell, Feb 3, 2008
    #16
  17. On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 13:56:32 +0100, Els wrote:
    > Samuel van Laere wrote:
    >> "Els" <> schreef:
    >>>
    >>> 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.

    >
    > 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.
     
    Allodoxaphobia, Feb 3, 2008
    #17
  18. Samuel van Laere

    Els Guest

    Samuel van Laere wrote:

    >> 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)


    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.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
     
    Els, Feb 3, 2008
    #18
  19. Samuel van Laere

    cwdjrxyz Guest

    On Feb 3, 5:17 am, "Samuel van Laere"
    <webkluns__at__hotmail__dot__com> wrote:
    > 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.

    > Or shouldn't Firefox display the image as small as possible?
     
    cwdjrxyz, Feb 3, 2008
    #19
  20. Samuel van Laere

    Els Guest

    Els wrote:
    > Samuel van Laere wrote:
    >
    >> 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


    > 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.

    --
    Els http://locusmeus.com/
     
    Els, Feb 3, 2008
    #20
    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. Guest
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    905
    Eliyahu Goldin
    Jan 4, 2005
  2. Jeff Louella

    IE7 on XP vs IE7 on Vista

    Jeff Louella, Mar 1, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    520
    Adrienne Boswell
    Mar 2, 2007
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    439
    Owen Jacobson
    Nov 13, 2007
  4. Adrienne Boswell
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    512
    dorayme
    Aug 4, 2009
  5. Travis Newbury
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    442
    Travis Newbury
    Aug 4, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page