Proofreading Service needs Proofreading Service



  • A server changing my code?

    No.



  • @Random832 said:

    Maybe the dimensions could be included in the img tag, as some sort of attribute.

    I really hope you're being sarcastic here. 



  • @Zylon said:

    @Random832 said:

    Maybe the dimensions could be included in the img tag, as some sort of attribute.

    I really hope you're being sarcastic here. 

     Glad I am not the only one who thought that, and was looking around for the </Sarcasm> tag... 



  • @Random832 said:

    Just realized what you're actually saying - well, there's no inherent reason the servers couldn't just include the dimensions of each image along with the HTML file, rather than having to serve up the whole header at that time. Maybe the dimensions could be included in the img tag, as some sort of attribute.

    This is an excellent idea.  Perhaps we should form some sort of consortium to standardize this.



  • @bstorer said:

    @Random832 said:

    Just realized what you're actually saying - well, there's no inherent reason the servers couldn't just include the dimensions of each image along with the HTML file, rather than having to serve up the whole header at that time. Maybe the dimensions could be included in the img tag, as some sort of attribute.

    This is an excellent idea.  Perhaps we should form some sort of consortium to standardize this.

    Yes, let's have a bunch of people with absolutely no control over the implementation making up "standards". Just like w3c. 



  • @dhromed said:

    A server changing my code?

    No.

    No different to SSI - but if I were doing it, I'd just bundle up all the necessary metadata and prefix it to the html chunk, then let the client sort it out. It's simpler. 



  • @dhromed said:

    A server changing my code?

    No.

    You do realize the browser changes your code, right? In firefox, do "select all" and "view selection source" - unless you have perfect XHTML (and, css rules in inline styles can be subtly changed even then), what you'll see isn't going to be byte-for-byte the same as what you wrote.



  • @bstorer said:

    @Random832 said:

    Just realized what you're actually saying - well, there's no inherent reason the servers couldn't just include the dimensions of each image along with the HTML file, rather than having to serve up the whole header at that time. Maybe the dimensions could be included in the img tag, as some sort of attribute.

    This is an excellent idea.  Perhaps we should form some sort of consortium to standardize this.

    No, it's not an excellent idea. It's actually a pretty dumb idea, because it would only be practical if every single image on the page was hosted on the same server as the HTML document. And it would only work for static pages.



  • @Zylon said:

    @bstorer said:

    @Random832 said:

    Just realized what you're actually saying - well, there's no inherent reason the servers couldn't just include the dimensions of each image along with the HTML file, rather than having to serve up the whole header at that time. Maybe the dimensions could be included in the img tag, as some sort of attribute.

    This is an excellent idea.  Perhaps we should form some sort of consortium to standardize this.

    No, it's not an excellent idea. It's actually a pretty dumb idea, because it would only be practical if every single image on the page was hosted on the same server as the HTML document. And it would only work for static pages.

    Perhaps we should form a consortium on sarcasm instead. 



  • @bstorer said:

    @Zylon said:
    @bstorer said:

    @Random832 said:

    Just realized what you're actually saying - well, there's no inherent reason the servers couldn't just include the dimensions of each image along with the HTML file, rather than having to serve up the whole header at that time. Maybe the dimensions could be included in the img tag, as some sort of attribute.

    This is an excellent idea.  Perhaps we should form some sort of consortium to standardize this.

    No, it's not an excellent idea. It's actually a pretty dumb idea, because it would only be practical if every single image on the page was hosted on the same server as the HTML document. And it would only work for static pages.

    Perhaps we should form a consortium on sarcasm instead. 

    I heard the </sarcasm> tag works really well... 



  • @stratos said:

    @m0ffx said:
    @stratos said:

    By first requesting the images and after reading the header simply already apply the height and width to the layout while waiting for the rest of the data.

    Problem with that idea is that many web servers are configured to limit multiple connections from the same source. So if the browser tries and obtains all the images near-simultaneously, the server may simply refuse to server more than one at a time, negating this idea. Or the browser can abort downloading the image after receiving the header, but even so, the browser is still making more requests than it should.

    Beside, in general, the client shouldn't have to kludge for the server's mistakes. The website should have height and width in its img tags. A html editor that could add the attributes automatically would be a good idea IMHO. (Does one exist?)

    It's not really a server mistake, because the server 'serves' files. It doesn't even really understand what it's serving, nor should it really care.

    What I mean is it's a mistake at the server end in general. True, in this case it's been made by the writer(s) of the HTML, not the writer(s) of the web server software <i>per se</i>, but my point is that the RIGHT thing to do is to put height and width attributes in the img tag and ideally for the actual image to match said attributes. The client software should have to do file header-reading jiggery-pokery.



  • @Zylon said:

    @bstorer said:

    @Random832 said:

    Just realized what you're actually saying - well, there's no inherent reason the servers couldn't just include the dimensions of each image along with the HTML file, rather than having to serve up the whole header at that time. Maybe the dimensions could be included in the img tag, as some sort of attribute.

    This is an excellent idea.  Perhaps we should form some sort of consortium to standardize this.

    No, it's not an excellent idea. It's actually a pretty dumb idea, because it would only be practical if every single image on the page was hosted on the same server as the HTML document. And it would only work for static pages.

    Neither of those things are intrinsic limitations, they are just limitations of whatever particular mechanism you have in your head. There are several ways to solve it without those issues. 



  • @asuffield said:

    Neither of those things are intrinsic limitations, they are just limitations of whatever particular mechanism you have in your head. There are several ways to solve it without those issues.

    Yes, you do keep saying that. Yet you refuse to offer any examples.

    At this point I'm just going to assume that you're trolling. 



  • @Zylon said:

    @asuffield said:

    Neither of those things are intrinsic limitations, they are just limitations of whatever particular mechanism you have in your head. There are several ways to solve it without those issues.

    Yes, you do keep saying that. Yet you refuse to offer any examples.

    At this point I'm just going to assume that you're trolling. 

    Asuffield is right. The rest can be left as an exercise for the students.



  • @ammoQ said:

    @Zylon said:

    @asuffield said:

    Neither of those things are intrinsic limitations, they are just limitations of whatever particular mechanism you have in your head. There are several ways to solve it without those issues.

    Yes, you do keep saying that. Yet you refuse to offer any examples.

    At this point I'm just going to assume that you're trolling. 

    Asuffield is right. The rest can be left as an exercise for the students.

    Nope.

    I do believe asuffield has been called out. Challenged to a duel.

    What will it be gentlemen? Pistols or knives? 



  • @Zylon said:

    @asuffield said:

    Neither of those things are intrinsic limitations, they are just limitations of whatever particular mechanism you have in your head. There are several ways to solve it without those issues.

    Yes, you do keep saying that. Yet you refuse to offer any examples.

    At this point I'm just going to assume that you're trolling. 

    Static/dynamic doesn't matter, nor does the fact that the image might be on a different server. If anyone is trolling here it is probably you. 



  • stratos, let it go, dude.  You and Zylon and asuffield are never going to be able to form an alliance to rival W3C and resolve the browser wars.  It's over. 

    Forget it, stratos.  It's Chinatown.



  • @Random832 said:

    @dhromed said:

    A server changing my code?

    No.

    You do realize the browser changes your code, right? In firefox, do "select all" and "view selection source" - unless you have perfect XHTML (and, css rules in inline styles can be subtly changed even then), what you'll see isn't going to be byte-for-byte the same as what you wrote.

    The code remains functionally the same, and I an still get at the original code by view source (that is, in FFX one uses the webdev toolbar to specify your editor because the built-in sourceviewer is crap).

    The funny thing is that if I use javascript to display the innerHTML of various elements, I will get back my actual code. In IE, you get back  code that's mangled beyond belief:
    - uppercase tags
    - non-quoted attributes
    - malformed markup
    - uppercase CSS (!)
    - CSS declarations on a single line

    That's useless. 



  • @dhromed said:

    The funny thing is that if I use javascript to display the innerHTML of various elements, I will get back my actual code. In IE, you get back  code that's mangled beyond belief:
    - uppercase tags
    - non-quoted attributes
    - malformed markup
    - uppercase CSS (!)
    - CSS declarations on a single line

    That's useless. 

    Mozilla mangles it too - it just happens to mangle it into a way that apparently matches your coding style. (all tags will become lowercase, even though html is case-insensitive. attributes may be reordered; css font, border, and background declarations are grouped and ungrouped seemingly at random. <DIV STYLE="border:1px dotted black; border-left: 2px solid red"> becomes <div style="border-style: dotted dotted dotted solid; border-color: black black black red; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 2px;">. If the content is not well-formed, it will be "mangled" according to rules that vary by which tags are used (<b>aaa<i>bbb</b>ccc</i> becomes <b>aaa<i>bbb</i></b><i>ccc</i>.) Can you provide an example where IE creates malformed markup from well-formed?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.