Marc Lawrence wrote:
>> Moose wrote:
>> I think that is almost certainly your browser. Probably adjustable
>> somewhere in preferences where you can choose to have images
>> too big for the display area either resized, probably with an
>> option to maintain proportions, or displayed full size with scroll
>> bars. Also, if you have an info/favorites/etc. bar on the side,
>> you can temporarily close it - to give the image room to breathe
>> (chuckle).
>>
>> It is absolutely dead simple, basic HTML and displays exactly
>> the same here, full size, on Firefox, IE and Netscape browsers.
>>
>
> The webpage will likely display the same in any webbrowser. My point
> is that the actual jpg itself has different dimensions to that which
> you specify it to display as in the HTML source.
>
Well, apparently not. It displays full size, in original proportion, on
the three major browsers I have.
What browser are you using?
> The image referenced in the HTML source is:
>
> http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Sierras/siltrees.jpg
>
> The pixel dimensions of this image are 840x553.
>
> Your HTML source, however, specifies the browser to display it as
> follows:
>
> <IMG SRC=siltrees.jpg width=860 height=660>
>
Yes, I know what's in there, it's hand written code and virtually all my
web images are either 840 pixels wide for landscape or 760 high for
portrait orientation
> That is, 860x660, which are different dimensions to the jpg,
> particarly as a ratio of each other, thus the horizontal compression
> of the image in the webpage:
>
> http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Sierras/Siltrees.htm
>
All true, and yet, the only change I see when I change the dimensions in
the html with FF, IE and Netscape is that the text below the image moves
up. I've been using larger than necessary vertical dimension specs for
ages to control placement of the next element and this is the first time
it has caused a problem anybody has commented on, so I'm sort of
non-plussed. I've got a lot of html out there like this.
I do tend to add at least 20 pixels of extra in both dimensions because
I do so many roll-overs using IFRAME<>. If I size exactly with IFRAME,
it produces scroll bars. I have no idea why.
Actually, I freely admit I know essentially nothing about why html does
many things that seem nonsensical to me. I read the MS specs and wrote a
page with roll over boxes so I could display many steps in a way that
the changes could be easily seen by flipping back and forth between
versions of the image without changing pages.. The boxes don't display
as the documentation seems to me to say they will, but at least work to
change the images in FF and Netscape, but display differently in IE,
although still not as I would expect from the documentation, don't work
to change the images in IE, for which the documentation I used is intended.
> It's a lovely image. I like the non-horizontally-compressed version
> better though. :-)
>
Well, I haven't seen the other version, but I'm sure I'd agree with you.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
