"invisible" image

Discussion in 'HTML' started by sjp@soca.com, Jan 31, 2005.

  1. Guest

    I have a little 3 page site built by hand in notepad using C­SS. In
    my content window I want to insert an image with the ALIGN=left­
    attribute.

    When I insert the image using the IMG SRC= tag without the a­lign
    attribute, the image displays properly. But when I include ­the ALIGN
    attribute (left or right, it doesn't matter), the image disa­ppears.
    An appropriate sized empty space is left on the page, and right­
    clicking on the empty space brings up all of the usual image related
    ­options, including the image size, name, etc. Its just not visible.
    ­ No, there isn't the little "x" that would appear if there was some
    sor­t of problem. Remember, just deleting the Align tag makes the
    im­age appear.

    But adding the align tag shifts the text around so I have a ­nice
    empty space on the side of the page, where the image should ­be, just
    no image!


    Any idea what is happening? Thanks.


    FWIW, both the CSS and the html code are extremely simple an­d
    straightforward.
     
    , Jan 31, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Oli Filth Guest

    wrote:
    > FWIW, both the CSS and the html code are extremely simple an­d
    > straightforward.
    >


    They may well be simple, but something odd is clearly happening, so
    you'll probably get more success if you post a URI, or at the very least
    some code (a URI is preferable)

    --
    Oli
     
    Oli Filth, Jan 31, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Steve Pugh Guest

    wrote:

    >I have a little 3 page site built by hand in notepad using C­SS. In
    >my content window I want to insert an image with the ALIGN=left­
    >attribute.
    >
    >When I insert the image using the IMG SRC= tag without the a­lign
    >attribute, the image displays properly. But when I include ­the ALIGN
    >attribute (left or right, it doesn't matter), the image disa­ppears.
    >An appropriate sized empty space is left on the page, and right­
    >clicking on the empty space brings up all of the usual image related
    >­options, including the image size, name, etc. Its just not visible.
    >­ No, there isn't the little "x" that would appear if there was some
    >sor­t of problem. Remember, just deleting the Align tag makes the
    >im­age appear.
    >
    >But adding the align tag shifts the text around so I have a ­nice
    >empty space on the side of the page, where the image should ­be, just
    >no image!


    Which browser(s)?
    What's the URL?

    Sounds like it could be the IE peekaboo bug.

    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, Jan 31, 2005
    #3
  4. Guest

    >
    > Which browser(s)?
    > What's the URL?
    >
    > Sounds like it could be the IE peekaboo bug.
    >
    > Steve
    >
    > --


    IE 6+
    its a site under devlopment, so its not online. But the whole site is
    only 3 pages and maybe two pages worth of code (including the CSS) so
    I could post the code without taking up much space. What section would
    be most useful, or should I just post the style sheet and the whole
    HTML page? (They are small)
    Thanks....and what is the "peekaboo" bug?
     
    , Jan 31, 2005
    #4
  5. Richard Guest

    On 31 Jan 2005 08:10:36 -0800 wrote:

    > I have a little 3 page site built by hand in notepad using C­SS. In
    > my content window I want to insert an image with the ALIGN=left­
    > attribute.


    > When I insert the image using the IMG SRC= tag without the a­lign
    > attribute, the image displays properly. But when I include ­the ALIGN
    > attribute (left or right, it doesn't matter), the image disa­ppears.
    > An appropriate sized empty space is left on the page, and right­
    > clicking on the empty space brings up all of the usual image related
    > ­options, including the image size, name, etc. Its just not visible.
    > ­ No, there isn't the little "x" that would appear if there was some
    > sor­t of problem. Remember, just deleting the Align tag makes the
    > im­age appear.


    > But adding the align tag shifts the text around so I have a ­nice
    > empty space on the side of the page, where the image should ­be, just
    > no image!



    > Any idea what is happening? Thanks.



    > FWIW, both the CSS and the html code are extremely simple an­d
    > straightforward.




    Are you trying to use <img src="name.jpg align="left">???

    If so, sorry, but that attribute is for tables not styling.
    Try this instead: <img src="name.jpg" style="text-align:left;">


    What you need to do is to learn how css styling functions.
    What is done in tables and styles are two different things.
     
    Richard, Jan 31, 2005
    #5
  6. Steve Pugh Guest

    "Richard" <Anonymous@127.001> wrote:
    >On 31 Jan 2005 08:10:36 -0800 wrote:
    >
    >> I have a little 3 page site built by hand in notepad using C­SS. In
    >> my content window I want to insert an image with the ALIGN=left­
    >> attribute.

    >
    >Are you trying to use <img src="name.jpg align="left">???


    Yes Richard, he said that. (Except that he probably didn't miss a
    quote out)

    >If so, sorry, but that attribute is for tables not styling.


    Rubbish. See the HTML spec. align is a valid attribute for <img>. It's
    deprecated and should be replaced with CSS but not with the CSS you
    suggest...

    >Try this instead: <img src="name.jpg" style="text-align:left;">


    Totally different. That aligns the content of the img element to the
    left. As <img> doesn't have any content it's meaningless.

    float: left would be the correct CSS equivalent. If it is a variant of
    the peekaboo bug as I suggested then the CSS will trigger it just the
    same.

    >What you need to do is to learn how css styling functions.


    Why don't you?

    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 1, 2005
    #6
  7. Jan Faerber Guest

    Jan Faerber, Feb 1, 2005
    #7
  8. Jan Faerber Guest

    wrote:

    > But the whole site is
    > only 3 pages and maybe two pages worth of code (including the CSS) so
    > I could post the code without taking up much space.


    Does it look like this:

    |---------------------|---------------------|
    | | |
    | | |
    | | |
    | | |
    | | |
    | | |
    | | |
    |---------------------|---------------------|
    | |
    | |
    | |
    |-------------------------------------------|

    .... frame#1, frame#2, frame#3?

    lol

    --
    Jan

    http://linux.janfaerber.com
     
    Jan Faerber, Feb 1, 2005
    #8
  9. Jan Faerber Guest

    Oli Filth wrote:

    > wrote:
    > > FWIW, both the CSS and the html code are extremely simple an­d
    >> straightforward.
    >>

    >
    > They may well be simple, but something odd is clearly happening, so
    > you'll probably get more success if you post a URI, or at the very least
    > some code (a URI is preferable)



    On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 01:13:10 -0600, Richard <Anonymous@127.001> wrote:
    > Need free web space?
    > Plenty of sites around for that.
    > www.cjb.net is quick and painless.
    > Only gives you 1mb but hey, it's free.



    --
    Jan

    http://linux.janfaerber.com
     
    Jan Faerber, Feb 1, 2005
    #9
  10. Steve Pugh Guest

    Jan Faerber <jancfaerber_spider@monkey_hotmail.com> wrote:
    >Steve Pugh wrote:
    >
    >> float: left would be the correct CSS equivalent. If it is a variant of
    >> the peekaboo bug as I suggested then the CSS will trigger it just the
    >> same.

    >
    >http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#floats
    >
    >correct?


    What's correct? That's the correct URL for the part of the
    specification that defines floats, yes. Were you unsure?

    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 1, 2005
    #10
  11. Jan Faerber Guest

    Steve Pugh wrote:

    > Jan Faerber <jancfaerber_spider@monkey_hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>Steve Pugh wrote:
    >>
    >>> float: left would be the correct CSS equivalent. If it is a variant of
    >>> the peekaboo bug as I suggested then the CSS will trigger it just the
    >>> same.

    >>
    >>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#floats
    >>
    >>correct?

    >
    > What's correct? That's the correct URL for the part of the
    > specification that defines floats, yes. Were you unsure?


    Yes, /TR/REC-CSS2 ... so I found something not deprecated and not special
    case folded? They have transitional, frameset and strict. /TR stands for
    transitional? Isn't strict the recommended version? And CSS2. 'floating' is
    not defined within CSS1 or CSS*?

    To get the structure and the content right are the same thing.




    --
    Jan

    http://linux.janfaerber.com
     
    Jan Faerber, Feb 1, 2005
    #11
  12. rf Guest

    "Jan Faerber" <jancfaerber_spider@monkey_hotmail.com> wrote

    > Yes, /TR/REC-CSS2 ... so I found something not deprecated and not special
    > case folded? They have transitional, frameset and strict. /TR stands for
    > transitional? Isn't strict the recommended version? And CSS2. 'floating'

    is
    > not defined within CSS1 or CSS*?


    Could you email me some of those drugs you are using. They sound very
    colourfully 1970-ish :)

    > To get the structure and the content right are the same thing.


    Er, no.
     
    rf, Feb 1, 2005
    #12
  13. Steve Pugh Guest

    Jan Faerber <jancfaerber_spider@monkey_hotmail.com> wrote:
    >Steve Pugh wrote:
    >> Jan Faerber <jancfaerber_spider@monkey_hotmail.com> wrote
    >>
    >>>http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/visuren.html#floats
    >>>
    >>>correct?

    >>
    >> What's correct? That's the correct URL for the part of the
    >> specification that defines floats, yes. Were you unsure?

    >
    >Yes, /TR/REC-CSS2 ... so I found something not deprecated and not special
    >case folded?


    Floats are indeed not deprecated. I have no idea what "special case
    folded" means.

    >They have transitional, frameset and strict.


    HTML 4, HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 do.

    But that has nothing to do with CSS except that if you use Strict
    rather than Transitional you will inevitably end up using CSS for your
    presentation rather than HTML.

    >/TR stands for transitional?


    No TR stands for Technical Recommendation.

    > Isn't strict the recommended version?


    Of HTML, but we're talking about CSS now.

    >And CSS2. 'floating' is not defined within CSS1 or CSS*?


    No it is defined in CSS1, CSS2.1 and CSS 3 as well.

    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1.html#float

    http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#floats

    http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-box-20021024/#floating

    >To get the structure and the content right are the same thing.


    Not really. You start with content, then you structure it with HTML,
    then you style it with CSS.

    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 1, 2005
    #13
  14. Duende Guest

    While sitting in a puddle rf scribbled in the mud:

    >
    > Could you email me some of those drugs you are using. They sound very
    > colourfully 1970-ish :)


    60's LSD had way more colors

    --
    D?
    http://wipkip.biz
    I recommend
    http://hostingforabuck.com/
     
    Duende, Feb 1, 2005
    #14
  15. Jan Faerber Guest

    Steve Pugh wrote:

    > Floats are indeed not deprecated. I have no idea what "special case
    > folded" means.


    'Case folding' comes from XML ... I read a php book this morning. They use
    this expression because it can be hardly translated into german, there are
    definitely no german expressions for it. I used this expression because I
    thought it ment 'one case inherits another one' but obviously it has more
    to do with upper_case and lower_case and to get all xml tags in upper_case
    letters.
    I will try to abandon fake words in further postings.


    >>They have transitional, frameset and strict.

    >
    > HTML 4, HTML 4.01 and XHTML 1.0 do.
    >
    > But that has nothing to do with CSS except that if you use Strict
    > rather than Transitional you will inevitably end up using CSS for your
    > presentation rather than HTML.


    I see.

    >>/TR stands for transitional?

    >
    > No TR stands for Technical Recommendation.


    OK!

    >> Isn't strict the recommended version?

    >
    > Of HTML, but we're talking about CSS now.
    >
    >>And CSS2. 'floating' is not defined within CSS1 or CSS*?

    >
    > No it is defined in CSS1, CSS2.1 and CSS 3 as well.
    >
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS1.html#float
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visuren.html#floats
    > http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-box-20021024/#floating


    I knew I didn't know anything.

    >>To get the structure and the content right are the same thing.

    >
    > Not really. You start with content, then you structure it with HTML,
    > then you style it with CSS.


    I didn't mean 'content' of the page that you can read and browse.
    More what elements you can use.
    At first you do HTML and then CSS ... <gulp> this can produce more work than
    necessary.



    --
    Jan

    http://linux.janfaerber.com
     
    Jan Faerber, Feb 1, 2005
    #15
  16. rf Guest

    "Duende" <> wrote
    > While sitting in a puddle rf scribbled in the mud:
    >
    > >
    > > Could you email me some of those drugs you are using. They sound very
    > > colourfully 1970-ish :)

    >
    > 60's LSD had way more colors


    Mr D sir! I was in school during the 60's.

    Come to think of it they *were* more colourfull.

    I remember a certain day up in Coonabarrabran during the summer of 68 with a
    certain pop band, er, ... well, ah, no I umm don't, not that well :)
     
    rf, Feb 1, 2005
    #16
  17. Steve Pugh Guest

    Jan Faerber <jancfaerber_spider@monkey_hotmail.com> wrote:
    >Steve Pugh wrote:
    >>Jan Faerber <jancfaerber_spider@monkey_hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>To get the structure and the content right are the same thing.

    >>
    >> Not really. You start with content, then you structure it with HTML,
    >> then you style it with CSS.

    >
    >I didn't mean 'content' of the page that you can read and browse.


    That's what most people round here mean when they say content. If you
    want to use your own meaning then please let us know so we can
    understand what you're trying to say.

    >More what elements you can use.


    The most appropriate ones. Look at the HTML 4 spec for a list of the
    available elements, note that a few of them (<center>, <font>, etc.
    are deprecated and should only be used if you have a very, very, very
    good reason for not using the alternatives). Then look at your content
    and decide which element matches the purpose of each piece of content.
    If in doubt ask here.

    >At first you do HTML and then CSS ... <gulp> this can produce more work than
    >necessary.


    You can skip all the work by sending text files instead. But then you
    lose out on all those nice hyperlinks and so on.

    You can skip the CSS portion of the work by sending unstyled HTML
    only. You'll have a perfectly functional web site with all the content
    marked up appropriately, but it will be rendered with the browser's
    default presentation (which often leaves something to be desired).

    If you want a working web page that also looks pleasant and
    distinctive then you need to do the work. So in those terms it is
    necessary.

    However, unless you're planning to give every page a unique look you
    only need to do the CSS portion of the work once for a whole site.

    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 1, 2005
    #17
  18. Jan Faerber Guest

    Steve Pugh wrote:

    > Jan Faerber <jancfaerber_spider@monkey_hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>Steve Pugh wrote:
    >>>Jan Faerber <jancfaerber_spider@monkey_hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>To get the structure and the content right are the same thing.
    >>>
    >>> Not really. You start with content, then you structure it with HTML,
    >>> then you style it with CSS.

    >>
    >>I didn't mean 'content' of the page that you can read and browse.

    >
    > That's what most people round here mean when they say content. If you
    > want to use your own meaning then please let us know so we can
    > understand what you're trying to say.


    Yes, but it is a HTML group, it is mainly html - more tangential is flash,
    javascript, Applets ... you have thousands of documentations on www.w3.org
    and www.w3c.org and so on and on those link collections, you read some
    pages and then you find other pages that try to organize the content of
    those pages.

    >>More what elements you can use.

    >
    > The most appropriate ones. Look at the HTML 4 spec for a list of the
    > available elements, note that a few of them (<center>, <font>, etc.
    > are deprecated and should only be used if you have a very, very, very
    > good reason for not using the alternatives). Then look at your content
    > and decide which element matches the purpose of each piece of content.
    > If in doubt ask here.


    Not only elements ... elements, attributes, messures and all this.

    >>At first you do HTML and then CSS ... <gulp> this can produce more work
    >>than necessary.

    >
    > You can skip all the work by sending text files instead. But then you
    > lose out on all those nice hyperlinks and so on.
    >
    > You can skip the CSS portion of the work by sending unstyled HTML
    > only. You'll have a perfectly functional web site with all the content
    > marked up appropriately, but it will be rendered with the browser's
    > default presentation (which often leaves something to be desired).
    >
    > If you want a working web page that also looks pleasant and
    > distinctive then you need to do the work. So in those terms it is
    > necessary.
    >
    > However, unless you're planning to give every page a unique look you
    > only need to do the CSS portion of the work once for a whole site.


    Yes, but if you know that you want to use CSS you have to do it
    simultaniously - html and css.



    --
    Jan

    http://linux.janfaerber.com
     
    Jan Faerber, Feb 1, 2005
    #18
  19. kchayka Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > When I insert the image using the IMG SRC= tag without the a­lign
    > attribute, the image displays properly. But when I include ­the ALIGN
    > attribute (left or right, it doesn't matter), the image disa­ppears.


    As Steve suggested, this is no doubt a case of the IE peekaboo bug.

    On <img>, the align attribute (left/right values) and CSS float property
    are equivalent, at least where IE rendering is concerned. The same work
    arounds for float should also work for align.

    <URL:http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer/peekaboo.html>

    --
    Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
    Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
     
    kchayka, Feb 1, 2005
    #19
  20. Duende Guest

    While sitting in a puddle Jan Faerber scribbled in the mud:

    > They use
    > this expression because it can be hardly translated into german, there are
    > definitely no german expressions for it.


    <german> has been depreciated in favor of <english>

    --
    D?
    http://wipkip.biz
    I recommend
    http://hostingforabuck.com/
     
    Duende, Feb 1, 2005
    #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. Susan van Houen

    making webcontrols visible/invisible

    Susan van Houen, Jul 13, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    587
    Anatoly
    Jul 13, 2003
  2. Paul M.

    Invisible controls problem

    Paul M., Aug 3, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    381
    Paul M.
    Aug 4, 2003
  3. VB Programmer

    Question: Setting HTML OBJECT to invisible

    VB Programmer, Aug 20, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    4,999
    VB Programmer
    Aug 21, 2003
  4. Laszlo Zsolt Nagy
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,437
    Kartic
    Jan 26, 2005
  5. Andy B
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    630
    Andy B
    May 29, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page