HTML Embedded Images
-
This isn't really a WTF, but it *is* the kind of evil hacking that some innocent dumbass will use to create a monstrous WTF someday in the future:
http://www.bennherrera.com/EmbeddedImage/
(I'll give you a hint, it doesn't use a data: URI)
-
Is that second image of the exploding ball from Microsoft 3D Movie Maker? OMG memories!
-
That's largely useless, you can already embed images in URLs like so: src="data:image/gif;base64,[...]".
-
And he seems to have misunderstood the GPL.
-
@Sunstorm said:
That's largely useless, you can already embed images in URLs like so: src="data:image/gif;base64,[...]".
Except that's not supported by IE.
-
@Phill said:
It (non-base64 encoded) doesn't work if you have JS turned off.@Sunstorm said:
That's largely useless, you can already embed images in URLs like so: src="data:image/gif;base64,[...]".
Except that's not supported by IE.
-
-
Wow, talk about a solution in search of a problem.
(I was hoping this would be a demonstration of images created with huge tables of 1x1 borderless cells with background colors, but alas...)
-
All styles in the tags instead of a stylesheet.
Use of div inside table cells, for additional overhead.
Each row is a seperate table.
No fixed width for the tables or the cells for slower rendering.
And of coursejust getting the idea to create this is sufficient to have you commited to insane asylum.
<TD><DIV STYLE='line-height: 0; font-size: 0; height: 0; border-top-width: 0; border-right-width: 0; border-left-width: 0; border-bottom-width: 1px; width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; border-bottom-color: #a79f86'></DIV></TD>
-
@why? said:
<TD><DIV STYLE='line-height: 0; font-size: 0; height: 0; border-top-width: 0; border-right-width: 0; border-left-width: 0; border-bottom-width: 1px; width: 1px; border-top-style: solid; border-right-style: solid; border-bottom-style: solid; border-left-style: solid; border-bottom-color: #a79f86'></DIV></TD>
Duh. It's only compression if it's fucking huge once it's decompressed. The most impressive compression statistics will emerge if you tack on spuriously terrible data to the output. Just think! One pixel's worth of data (3 bytes - 4 characters in base64) is now decompressed into 308 characters! That's at least 308 bytes (potentially twice that)! The pixel's 308 bytes of information compresses down to 4 bytes when it's embedded! That's 1.299% of its original size!!!
-
Why does he use the word 'engineering' in a piece like this?
-
@Phill said:
@Sunstorm said:
That's largely useless, you can already embed images in URLs like so: src="data:image/gif;base64,[...]".
Except that's not supported by IE.
Given the choice between a solution that relies on Javascript and a standard-conforming solution that works on everything but IE... well, honestly, screw IE.
-
Well well, I was just browsing through Version Tracker and spotted this little gem: http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/22063
-
@db2 said:
Well well, I was just browsing through Version Tracker and spotted this little gem: http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/22063
Yes, now I can finally make my humongously large 16k images into tiny 304k HTML. Wonder when they will support xhtml or XML?
-
Undoubtedly, somebody will try to use this as a copy-protection feature, only to be defeated by any novice PC user who knows how the PrintScrn key works.
-
@db2 said:
Well well, I was just browsing through Version Tracker and spotted this little gem: http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/22063
"This application allows web authors to offer superior support for users
who rely on browsers which support tables but not images. "no comment ...
-
@Nelle said:
@db2 said:
Well well, I was just browsing through Version Tracker and spotted this little gem: http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/22063
"This application allows web authors to offer superior support for users
who rely on browsers which support tables but not images. "no comment ...
Yeah, I had to reread that statement a couple times to make sure I was actually reading it correctly.
-
@Nelle said:
@db2 said:
Well well, I was just browsing through Version Tracker and spotted this little gem: http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/22063
"This application allows web authors to offer superior support for users
who rely on browsers which support tables but not images. "no comment ...
I want a browser like that. Where can I get one?
-
@Nelle said:
@db2 said:
Well well, I was just browsing through Version Tracker and spotted this little gem: http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/22063
"This application allows web authors to offer superior support for users
who rely on browsers which support tables but not images. "no comment ...
Why? After all, I could browse the page with Lynx... oh, wait...
-
@Arancaytar said:
@Nelle said:
@db2 said:
Well well, I was just browsing through Version Tracker and spotted this little gem: http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/22063
"This application allows web authors to offer superior support for users who rely on browsers which support tables but not images. "
no comment ...
I want a browser like that. Where can I get one?
Not to mention it has to support Javascript, too.
-
@Arancaytar said:
@Nelle said:
@db2 said:
Well well, I was just browsing through Version Tracker and spotted this little gem: http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/22063
"This application allows web authors to offer superior support for users
who rely on browsers which support tables but not images. "no comment ...
I want a browser like that. Where can I get one?
Any of the text-based browsers (Lynx, Links, Links2, etc.) should meet your requirements.
-
@Zemyla said:
@Arancaytar said:
@Nelle said:
@db2 said:
Well well, I was just browsing through Version Tracker and spotted this little gem: http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/22063
"This application allows web authors to offer superior support for users who rely on browsers which support tables but not images. "
no comment ...
I want a browser like that. Where can I get one?
Not to mention it has to support Javascript, too.
Just turn off images in Firefox. There. Problem found.
-
@db2 said:
Wow, talk about a solution in search of a problem.
(I was hoping this would be a demonstration of images created with huge tables of 1x1 borderless cells with background colors, but alas...)
It's actually not a WHOLLY dreadful concept, in that it could be used to allow javascript to alter the 'image' itself. You could implement a game that way, and it would require only javascript. Would maybe be pushing it to do more than Pong or Space Invaders though.
...OK...it's dreadful. Just not wholly so.