rejetto forum
May 24, 2012, 01:29:39 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: This forum is free, you do NOT need to register to post. But you may.
PROBLEMS? QUESTIONS? CLICK HERE!
Fill the survey!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: [file.jpg] and IE problem  (Read 4105 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
maverick
Insane poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


Computer Solutions


View Profile
« on: December 03, 2006, 07:23:20 AM »

[file.jpg]

Has anyone else noticed that [file.jpg] isn't working for Internet Explorer?  I tested using v6.0.  No problem with Opera, Firefox or Netscape. 

Has anyone got it working for IE?
Logged

maverick
TSG
Operator
Insane poster
*****
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1919



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2006, 08:17:29 AM »

It works for me in Internet Explorer, can i see your code for the [file.jpg], because i know for a fact that IE doesnt support the <object> tag, and so if you are using my method below no thumbnails are shown. But thats only because IE doesn't support that tag, if you are using simple <img> and normal layout for content (tables/cells/layers) it should work perfectly fine.

[file.jpg]
<tr>
   <td class=rw style="padding:0px;border-left:0px;">%new% <a href="%item-url%" target=_blank><object data="/thumb/%item-name%" align=top><object data="/thumb/nt.gif" align=top /></object></object> &nbsp;<img style="display:none" align=top src="/~img_file" alt=""> %item-name%</a>%comment%</td>   
   <td class=rw align=center>%item-size%</td>
   <td class=rw align=center>%item-modified%</td>
   <td class=rw align=center>%item-dl-count%</td>
</tr>
« Last Edit: December 03, 2006, 08:20:16 AM by That_Stevens_Guy » Logged

maverick
Insane poster
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


Computer Solutions


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2006, 09:42:39 AM »

It works for me in Internet Explorer, can i see your code for the [file.jpg], because i know for a fact that IE doesnt support the <object> tag

That's what I was beginning to think too.  But I also use the object tag in [file.mp3] and IE works there.

Here is my [file.jpg] - Works perfectly here with all browsers EXCEPT Internet Explorer

<tr><td class=row style="padding:0px;border-left:0px;">%new% <a href="%item-url%" target=_blank><object data="/thumb/%item-name%" align=absmiddle></object> &nbsp; %item-name%</a><td align=center class=row>%item-size%<td align=center class=row>%item-modified%<td align=right class=row>%item-dl-count%

IE sure can be a pain in the a$$ at times.

EDIT
Replaced the object tag portion with <img src="/thumb/%item-name%" align=absmiddle></img> and now it's working with IE.  Thanks.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2006, 10:07:33 AM by maverick » Logged

maverick
TSG
Operator
Insane poster
*****
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1919



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2006, 10:14:25 AM »

hmm but the reason that object tag is used in my version is so that if there is no thumbnail for the image, a image with "no thumb" will show, maybe someone could write some javascript to allow for no thumb image replacement, so IE can also have this feature.
Logged

anonym2467
Guest


Email
« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2006, 01:13:58 PM »

Hmm, why the Hell try to use in that totally non standard way, the <OBJECT> tag, too ?! That is just plain lucky it is accepted as such by the always exotic and non standard weird reactions of Firefox & Co... For images, the <IMG> tag is always advised.. and much better and universal... http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_object.asp. You certainly missed a sub param to define correctly the image object inside btw.. http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/objects.html#h-13.3.1 .Firefox is loosy interpretating as usual visibly, lucky, not IE for sure ironically sticking to the standards now.. ^

don't blame IE once again for a non standard and advised usage of <OBJECT> tag too.. Huh? Roll Eyes

BTW, here is a perfectly working script with that, readable on *EVERY* browsers [with <IMG> indeed, all simply] (normal, just plain standard too) :

[file.jpg]
<tr class=trin>
<td align=right class=tdin1>%comment%%new%</td>
<td class=tdin><a href="%item-url%" target=_blank><img src="/~img_file" />&nbsp;%item-name%</a></td>
<td align=right class=tdin>%item-size%</td>
<td align=right class=tdin>%item-modified%</td>
<td align=right class=tdin>%item-dl-count%</td>
<td align=right class=tdin>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<img src="%item-url%" width="70" height="70"></td>
</tr>

You will note that in that simple <IMG> tag, you can resize on the fly your original *.jpg to give an homogeneous look in your page... if you have no thumbnails all of same size already.

I looked at your script ; indeed, it is really lucky that it could work in firefox &Co as such [interesting..] (!), but... result can be ugly !! (with no prethumbs of course) Images are fully loaded also (same, not the best solution too anyway if a big number of images) and... are full sizes too... layout can be messed very easily too with big sizes pics. With the standard <IMG>, at least, you can control the wished constant 'pseudo-thumbnail' size too.. and that's totally universal here.. hmm.

To finish on IE and <OBJECT>.. i would attract your attention on the totally non standard <EMBED> tag supported by Firefox & Co : W3C deprecated it for a long time now, never was standard again... and IE7 purely and simply refuse to tolerate it anymore now.. Sad result : the scripts for MP3 streamers flash/etc heavily based on simple firefox <EMBED> usage are no more working AT ALL in IE7 now.. IE6 was able to read them because it tolerated them but with IE7, that is finished now... you will need a PERFECTLY correct <OBJECT> tag code in IE7 now [AND an embedded <EMBED> tag inside as Firefox is unable to read and understand correct <OBJECT> tags..).. no more lazy <OBJECT> coding allowed.. i had to rewrite lots of quickly working <OBJECT> in IE6.. they must be perfect in IE7, with all the needed parameters^  even more now : IE7 will ONLY accept ultra standard <OBJECT> tags now... once again, this is an even bigger mess thx to Firefox exotic interpretations of W3C norms.. stupid browsers propriatary norms must finish.. i hope Firefox will interpretate and use correctly one day the <OBJECT> tag, and will drop its <EMBED>, etc.. lots of interesting discussions right now, btw on that.. as weirder and weirder <OBJECT> (missing elementary correct params, etc) tags are appearing nowadays thx to the Firefox&Co users (!) ...


cheers! Smiley




Logged
TSG
Operator
Insane poster
*****
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1919



View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2006, 11:32:55 PM »

I am in multimedia and i have just finished an entire university course on web programming. I KNOW this <object> is a non standard tag, but who really cares, the reason for it being used in the thumbnail scenario is to make an image file with no thumbnail reveal a thumbnail telling the user there is no available thumbnail for that image. And also my thumbnails are all the size i like 50x50px soooo there is no need to set a size.

If anyone can tell me a better way to make a file with no thumbnail show a default image, like my code does except it will work in all browsers EVEN the POS IE, feel free.

I am going to try doing it using layers, but the problem with this is that it will be more code, we need a javascript of some sort i think.

BTW anonym2467 become a member and stop wasting your time on such bloated threads.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 02:47:40 AM by That_Stevens_Guy » Logged

rejetto forum
« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2006, 11:32:55 PM »

Do you like this software? Consider even $2
 Logged
TSG
Operator
Insane poster
*****
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1919



View Profile WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2006, 05:18:20 AM »

OK i have made a new version of the thumbnail replacement. It uses layers, and it took me at least 2 hrs to work out LOL!, even though it was a little bit out of the square, it was so simple.

[file.jpg]
<tr>
   <td class=rw style="padding:0px;border-left:0px;">
   <a href="%item-url%" target=_blank>   
      <div style="float:right;margin:25px 25px 0px 0px;">%item-name%%new%</div>
      <div style="position:absolute;z-index:20;"><img src="/thumb/%item-name%" alt=""></div>
      <div style="z-index:10;"><img src="/thumb/nt.gif" alt=""></div>   
   </a>
   %comment%</td>
   <td class=rw align=center>%item-size%</td>
   <td class=rw align=center>%item-modified%</td>
   <td class=rw align=center>%item-dl-count%</td>
</tr>

It has been tested and works in all browsers (tested in Opera 9.02, Firefox 2.0, IE6).

Only known issue is in IE you get a red X in the place of the unloaded image.

Below i have attached examples from all of my 3 browsers.


[attachment deleted by admin]
« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 05:41:35 AM by That_Stevens_Guy » Logged

anonym2467
Guest


Email
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2006, 07:00:42 AM »

bloated threads because i just day to not blame IE when not necessary?! i repeat it if you want anyway, it is not an offensive statement : FIrefox *is* the bloated thing in many if not always. Its way to interprete html is just bad.. you never know how it can react and is very crippled almot everytime you do a subtile scripting.. no need to say it is IE that is now respecting the W3C norms almost perfectly for CSS, scriptings and correct tag interpretations. lol Just that.. i know what fandoms can be.. it was same at the time of Netscape (that invented and forced the propriatary shitty <EMBED> tag BTW..), except at the time of Netscape, it was way better than IE that was just debuting; now, it is almost the reverse.. Firefox NOT the best interpreter, totally not even.. so, just don't blame IE that is excellent nowadays when a code is not working on it.. if incomplete or exotic/Firefox propriatary, normal too.

PS:
YES.. your thing is working too now. Congrats, seems to be good! Like in my [file.jpg] exemple too :
<IMG> is working fine indeed.
No need more!

cheers.. no bloating, no need, really!
Logged
TSG
Operator
Insane poster
*****
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1919



View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2006, 07:33:20 AM »

Its funny cause i have had quite the opposite experience, Firefox and all other browsers always seems to work for me, and IE always glitches. I think it must depend on the coding style of the author. We all know that Firefox is bloated, but i don't notice it, it runs just as quick as IE on my PC and its not very new. And from experience doing university projects, IE has a lack of support for many new CSS features. It is very hard to please all browsers when coding, especially when trying to do something out of the ordinary. IE is the arch enemy of all web designers, because it is so strict.

But anyway i am glad to hear the new thumbnail replacement code is working for people.
Logged

rejetto
Administrator
Insane programmer
*
Offline Offline

Italy Italy

Posts: 11829


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2006, 07:40:01 AM »

i invite you to open a new topic if you want to continue discussing about who is the best in browser-war Wink
Logged
TSG
Operator
Insane poster
*****
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1919



View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2006, 07:46:17 AM »

hahaha it would be the hottest topic on the forum Wink

I mainly don't like IE because of its crap security, since using Firefox, i haven't had one security issue.

But other than that IE is quite a good browser to work with when building websites because of its strict standards. Usually if it works in IE, it will work in the other ones aswell Cheesy
Logged

anonym2467
Guest


Email
« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2006, 09:10:13 AM »

hehe.. OK Wink
Logged
anonym2467
Guest


Email
« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2006, 09:23:37 AM »

well, it is just too tempting (to finish on that) : for the eternal 'security issue myth with IE' (mainly always propagated by Firefox Fandom, yes Smiley ) : a problem only for newbie, but a real problem for sure! BUT.. if you just remove the MS JAVA and install the regular JAVA platform.. and know how to configured the security levels a minimum (no newbie), IE can sure be safe too.. of course, at default, Firefox is much more suited for newbies for that, and that is its best 'selling' (as free LOL^) point of course.. but IE even on that can compete if you know what you do a minimum with it of course, so .. as i say always ironically to bash the typical Firefox bashing /IE; Firefox for newbies hehe )) It is good to have a FREE multi platforms alternative though.. very good even.


ok, i see the point ; np, cheers.. my 'point' was just on that so ))

very nice job on the template so :
cheers!

(i am looking if i can find interesting javascript compatible checks for that btw.. the fact firefox doesn't show up an empty box is again an 'advantage' only due to its loosy html interpretation so; it simply doesn't send back the thing.. interesting again so.. here again, useful, ironically, so, good) Smiley
Logged
TSG
Operator
Insane poster
*****
Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1919



View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2006, 09:50:13 AM »

The reason Firefox and Opera doesn't show an X is because Firefox and Opera show the ALT="" text which is required by w3c of an <img> tag. So by setting the alt text to null ALT="", Opera and Firefox THINK that their is some alternate text and then shows the empty image as being a valid part of the page, because it has alternate text set. Now with IE it shows the X whether the placeholder has alt text or no image at all, its seems to show simply because of no image. Is it possible to disable this empty box i wonder. Maybe you could just find a javascript to disable that?

But then we face the other problem of the scared newbie's that simply disable javascript because they are lead to believe its dangerous, i am taught javascript at university, how am i meant to show off my javascript i learn if they disable the script on their browsers  Angry this is another argument that i was faced in my template post Cry it seems you can never please everyone ROFL!

YAY! anonym2467 finally became a member haha.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 10:06:47 AM by That_Stevens_Guy » Logged

anonym2467
Occasional poster
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2006, 10:01:37 AM »

y, it is becoming harder than ever again to do codes simply compatible for everything nowadays (damn it, y!).. even worst than ever now with the media formats wars raging now; every big players want to impose its playlist/media/mime format and such now.. poor W3C, they have a damn hard job to do again that is becoming more messy than ever now; one code for all they said, y.. pity, sure)))

ok, i try to see if a js could be ok for that.. though i am not sure is it would not be a php/asp server side thing again (to check if the right file is on disk or not : js can't do that, for security reasons precisely, arf).

i hope too people don't switch off their js nowadays, for sure.. flash too btw.. same.. though some flash over-visual effects sites can often be irritating, sure too)

ok + Wink

« Last Edit: December 04, 2006, 10:03:11 AM by anonym2467 » Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!


Google visited last this page May 12, 2012, 05:17:07 PM
anything