Posted on 03/17/2003 8:06:32 AM PST by I Am Not A Mod
Edited on 03/18/2003 2:47:22 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Ah, but apparently if the WIDTH and HEIGHT modifiers are used, the slow graphics will not cause the thread to freeze on loading.
Note, by the way, that despite the fact everyone likes to flame Microsoft's Internet Explorer, it's one of the few browsers that does *not* halt loading of a thread while it waits for images to be retrieved. It's extremely fast and efficient displaying webpages with sluggish graphics -- it displays what it can immediately (i.e., all the text), and then later reformats "on the fly" as the images finally arrive.
The most notorious browser with the annoying "I'm not going to show you anything after the graphics until I *get* the graphics" behavior is Netscape/Mozilla. That's one of the reasons I dumped Netscape long ago -- there's no excuse for that sort of poorly designed behavior.
Close, but not quite. It doesn't need to "completely" download the image, it only needs to get the "header", which is in the first hundred or so bytes of the image.
The bad news is that on slow servers, you won't get *any* part of an image until after a considerable delay, so you still have to sit and wait.
The good news is that for very large or high-resolution images, you don't have to wait for *all* the image to be downloaded -- the web page can format itself after receiving just the first few percent of the image, then all you have to wait on is to see the rest of the big image.
Correct, because then the browser still has to wait to receive the original image header itself in order to calculate the "missing" dimension, and you're right back to the original problem.
Supplying only one dimension works fine if your only concern is to grow/shrink the image while maintaining the original aspect ratio, but it unfortunately doesn't help the problem of some browsers (*cough*Netscape*cough*) not wanting to display the rest of the page until it can figure out the image size(s).
Ah. Missed that.
Sadly, such a system would make FR an easy target for a denial-of-service attack. All that would be required would be a few morons from the DU crowd to post a buttload of bogus images on servers that respond only once every sixty or ninety seconds. That would cause the server connection from FR to hang and then timeout. Meanwhile, the process table on the FR system would fill up with all these hung outbound connections to the point that it would stop answering incoming web requests. Bang. Denial-of-service.
Sorry, I can't hop on board with that plan. It's ill-conceived and fraught with potential for abuse.
-Jay
If we assume that an image on some remote server - that neither you nor I nor FR has any control over - remains static, that could work. IOW, if someone substitutes a new image in under the old file name, all bets are off. Most of the time that's probably a safe assumption, but not always, I think...
Thanks for the help and information . . .
Just testing this theory out...height=338, width=450
Now this is with the height and width reversed...
Your original image at http://www.bccls.org/images/0060393408.jpg has a native resolution of 312 x 475, as displayed here.
Not only does the graphic look blocky due to the poor job that most browser's do resizing images, but you took over 35K to do what could have easily been accomplished in under 12K.
<---- This is under 12K and displayed at its native 200x305 resolution
This is over 35K and displayed at a
slightly squished 200x300 resolution ---->
The image on the right looks (artificially) a bit sharper, but only becuase of the way the browser truncates pixels to shrink the image. This is especially noticable around Hillary's evil eyes.
Compare also the quality of the text in each. The smaller image, to my eyes, looks smoother and more correct.
How about having FR give some javascript to the poster's browser if any image sizes are not included, and have that javascript figure out and tell FR the proper sizes?
On the other hand, if the server is one which feeds "remote linking not permitted" pictures when shown in an FR post, having the FR server attempt to get image dimensions and include them would reveal the problem. Otherwise, someone who first views a picture in an "approved" manner and then links to it will see his own post correctly while others will see a "forbidden" banner.
As easy as making Jello.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.