Sure it is.

Post #74,752 by imric 1/15/03 10:00:46 PM Reply	Sure it is. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #74,755 by a6l6e6x 1/15/03 10:20:50 PM Reply	Indeed, the image files have the image dimensions in them. For example, the image in question is in a .GIF file and is 455 pixels by 340 pixels. The only time one should have to provide the image dimensions is to override what's in the file. Otherwise, the information is redundant. Alex "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."\t-- Mark Twain
Post #74,763 by deSitter 1/15/03 10:42:30 PM Reply	Who cares? Given that 95 percent of the world is using IE, why ruin your day agonizing about it? Aha! The Mozillites now have a way of sending stealth web images that will only be visible amongst the Bretheren! Yet Master, still they complain! Why? It is not to know, Grasshopper. -drl
Post #74,765 by orion 1/15/03 10:48:12 PM Reply	Just install Mozilla I just did that with my brother, he is going to try and give up on the IE habit. Pogo.com seems to play better on Mozilla but a bit sluggish at times. Pogo.com was bitching about his JVM being out of date, yet he had the IE 6.0 SP1 installed with the latest JVM. The Mozilla Java plug-in was installed and it had no problems running the pogo.com games. [link\|http://pub75.ezboard.com/bantiiwethey\| New and improved, Chicken Delvits!]
Post #74,769 by deSitter 1/15/03 11:01:51 PM Reply	Why? I hate anything remotely related to Netscape. It's a complete POS browser. To me IE is basically graphical Lynx. I don't really care about peripheral issues. Moreover, IE shows definite progress without giving up on being backward compatible with earlier versions of itself. This again indicates that MS has good programmers working on IE. I'm sure most of them are experts at UNIX. -drl
Post #74,839 by Ashton 1/16/03 7:23:19 AM Reply	{Sheesh} de S That doesn't qualify even as Trolling 101-Remedial (Note on cup, on a table in cafeteria) I spit in this coffee. (Appended message) So did I.
Post #74,853 by imric 1/16/03 8:42:37 AM Reply	Apparently not. progress without giving up on being backward compatible with earlier versions of itself. Since this is new behaviour on IE's part, that breaks existing webpages, I don't believe this statement is strictly speaking, correct. Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #74,904 by orion 1/16/03 12:41:11 PM Reply	There are other browsers out there you know [link\|http://www.opera.com\|Opera] being another one of them. Mozilla is nice, because Netscape open sourced it, so it is not really 100% Netscape written anymore. Netscape uses the Mozilla source to make the Netscape browser, but the Mozilla browser is pure, without all of those AOL Gee-gaws added onto it that cause crashes and system lockups. I like Mozilla because it is a pure browser, everything you need, not the silly Gee-Gaws that I don't want. If they could just add in NT/W2K Server login responses, ActiveX control support, and VBScript support it could kick IE's butt in the corporate areas. What was that Netscape plug-in that did that, Netcompass or something? Why can't they make a plug-in like that for Mozilla? [link\|http://pub75.ezboard.com/bantiiwethey\| New and improved, Chicken Delvits!]
Post #74,921 by deSitter 1/16/03 3:14:07 PM Reply	I hate Opera I've tried it before. It takes forever to get the fonts configured consistently and it just isn't worth it. When tight memory was an issue, it was a good alternative, because it's resource friendly - but when the most crippled machine I use has 72 megs of RAM, why bother? In any case, I like IE and I am totally satisfied with its performance. I once irrationally joined in the chorus of boos for IE and used Netscape. I was wrong - IE has been the "better" browser since version 3. -drl
Post #74,941 by orion 1/16/03 4:53:55 PM Reply	Got to be something else for you have you tried Oracle's Power browser? :) [link\|http://pub75.ezboard.com/bantiiwethey\| New and improved, Chicken Delvits!]
Post #74,942 by deSitter 1/16/03 5:08:36 PM Reply	I don't want anything else, get it? It's a stupid browser. IE works fine. -drl
Post #74,944 by imric 1/16/03 5:17:09 PM Reply	Was going to post something along those lines Not about IE, necessarily (you know my opinion about that) - but that's the beauty of choices. Figured you could speak for yourself, though... smile Imric's Tips for Living Paranoia Is a Survival Trait Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised... Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
Post #74,954 by orion 1/16/03 6:16:45 PM Reply	Got it welcome to the IE Club then. [link\|http://pub75.ezboard.com/bantiiwethey\| New and improved, Chicken Delvits!]
Post #74,947 by deSitter 1/16/03 5:35:07 PM Reply	Re: Indeed, the image files have the image dimensions.. What if the image is a PNG and you have no renderer for that? Or some new whizbang format? You still need to format the "missing" box. How, without knowing how big it should be? -drl
Post #74,953 by orion 1/16/03 6:16:15 PM Reply	Red "X" in that case you'll usually get that infamous red "x" instead of the image. Making an IMG tag without dimensions is a standard HTML tag and anyone could make one of those. What if you don't know the dimensions of the image and you screw it up by guessing? [link\|http://pub75.ezboard.com/bantiiwethey\| New and improved, Chicken Delvits!]
Post #74,986 by a6l6e6x 1/16/03 8:10:59 PM Reply	A PNG file does have image dimensions. [link\|http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/spec/PNG-Chunks.html#C.IHDR\|PNG image header.] 4.1.1. IHDR Image header The IHDR chunk must appear FIRST. It contains: Width: 4 bytes Height: 4 bytes Bit depth: 1 byte Color type: 1 byte Compression method: 1 byte Filter method: 1 byte Interlace method: 1 byte Obviously one cannot display an unknown image file format, but an image file that does not include image dimensions isn't practical unless it is, by definition, fixed. Alex "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."\t-- Mark Twain
Post #75,022 by deSitter 1/16/03 11:24:51 PM Reply	Well what about the DRL format? I just created it, here's the proof: [image\|http://www.nytimes.com\|\|\|480\|640] -drl
Post #75,164 by a6l6e6x 1/17/03 2:03:13 PM Reply	Re: Well, the DRL format get no respect! :) Besides, it was not a proper file. Alex "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."\t-- Mark Twain
Post #75,194 by Steven A S 1/17/03 3:26:25 PM Reply	Reason to set default image size in html The primary reason to set the width and height in html is so that the browser doesn't have to reformat the page when it gets around to loading the image. I'm sure everybody has seen a web page come up text first, then flash and reformat the screen for each image. When the browser knows the expected size beforehand, it can format the text appropriately, and doesn't have to adjust it later. I believe browsers are getting better at handling this these days though. That being said though, there are times when it's more of a bother than necessary, or the image size is not known ahead of time (say you're displaying random images, and the proper size for one image may stretch another grotesquely). It therefore shouldn't be a requirement. ~~~)-Steven---- "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country..." General George S. Patton

Welcome to IWETHEY!