Date parsed: 21/04/2008 17:03:51
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:03:51 +0100

Message-ID: <0001HW.C432695900E26738F0182648@news.individual.net> from
Hugh Browton contained the following:

>Have I gone too far modern into XHTML for most browsers?


The problem is with the images.
--
Geoff Berrow 0110001001101100010000000110
001101101011011001000110111101100111001011
100110001101101111001011100111010101101011

Date parsed: 21/04/2008 17:26:53
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:26:53 +0100


"Hugh Browton" <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C4326EC000E3AB7DF0182648@news.individual.net...
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:03:51 +0100, Geoff Berrow wrote
> (in article <k5bp04d9dd3fsqc70fauvoc8f4p29ltm08@4ax.com>):
>
>> Message-ID: <0001HW.C432695900E26738F0182648@news.individual.net>
>> from
>> Hugh Browton contained the following:
>>
>>> Have I gone too far modern into XHTML for most browsers?
>>
>>
>> The problem is with the images.
>>
>
> In what way, please?
>

They still don't show up if the raw URL is requested (i.e.
http://www.thecoachhouse-woodbridge.co.uk/Images/Web-p1p2.jpg) meaning
there is no page mark-up.

Date parsed: 21/04/2008 17:56:58
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:56:58 +0100

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:26:53 +0100, Jerry: wrote
(in article <fuibot$2hu$1@registered.motzarella.org>):

>
> "Hugh Browton" <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.C4326EC000E3AB7DF0182648@news.individual.net...
>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:03:51 +0100, Geoff Berrow wrote
>> (in article <k5bp04d9dd3fsqc70fauvoc8f4p29ltm08@4ax.com>):
>>
>>> Message-ID: <0001HW.C432695900E26738F0182648@news.individual.net>
>>> from
>>> Hugh Browton contained the following:
>>>
>>>> Have I gone too far modern into XHTML for most browsers?
>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is with the images.
>>>
>>
>> In what way, please?
>>
>
> They still don't show up if the raw URL is requested (i.e.
> http://www.thecoachhouse-woodbridge.co.uk/Images/Web-p1p2.jpg) meaning
> there is no page mark-up.
>
>

The /Images folder is the place where the (simple) .jpg files are stored. OK,
Safari gives the image, Firefox the filename. So I can see that the browsers
do different things with .jpg files.


On the page they are inside a

<div style="text-align: center;">
.......
</div>

pair that defines the whole page

--
regards
hugh
hugh at clarity point uk point co
(by the sea) (using Hogwasher)

Time for a new .sig tagline

Date parsed: 21/04/2008 18:07:46
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:07:46 +0100

<uk.net.web.authoring>
<Hugh Browton>
<Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:56:58 +0100>
<0001HW.C43277DA00E5CDA7F0182648@news.individual.net>

> The /Images folder is the place where the (simple) .jpg files are stored. OK,
> Safari gives the image, Firefox the filename. So I can see that the browsers
> do different things with .jpg files.
>

www.thecoachhouse-woodbridge.co.uk/Images/Web-2-head.jpg

As the above works - my guess is you have a misconfigured .htaccess file
that is stopping .jpg images over a certain filesize from being served
up to the browser .


--
www.krustov.co.uk

Date parsed: 21/04/2008 21:06:48
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:06:48 +0100

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:27:50 +0100, Hugh Browton put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:30:37 +0100, mrcakey wrote
>(in article <fuic0k$h4r$1@aioe.org>):
>
>> "Hugh Browton" <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.C432695900E26738F0182648@news.individual.net...
>>>
>>> Dear All ­
>>>
>>> I have written a simple website using XHTML 1.0 compliant code (I
>>> believe).
>>> Why is it that Safari on a Macintosh presents the images (eg):
>>>
>>> <img style="width: 117px; height: 178px;" alt="Tea" title="Tea"
>>> src="Images/Web-p4p1.jpg" />
>>>
>>>
>>> but that PC browsers (Internet Explorer v7, Firefox, Opera, and Safari)
>>> cannot.
>>
>> As the other poster said, the problem is with your images - they are there
>> (otherwise we'd get a 404) but they're not being processed. I'd review the
>> options on whatever program you're using to save them and then work through
>> the XHTML validation report above.
>>
>
>
>I'm not sure what the difference is but I re-saved the images from
>GraphicConverter as "Save for Web..." and that has solved the problem. ?File
>size; ?72 dpi; ?colour-space.

The problem is likely to be that you originally created them on a Mac
and saved them with Mac byte order. That's why a Mac can see them but
a PC can't. Using GraphicConverter to "save for the web" has saved
them with what the Mac calls "Windows" byte order, but everywhere else
(including Linux) just calls "normal" :-)

Mark
--
Miscellaneous remarks at http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk
"Look at the stars; look how they shine for you"

Date parsed: 22/04/2008 18:22:32
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:22:32 +0100

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:06:48 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote
(in article <h5pp045oalibmln5isi3htd9gd8dcloloi@news.markshouse.net>):

> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:27:50 +0100, Hugh Browton put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:30:37 +0100, mrcakey wrote
>> (in article <fuic0k$h4r$1@aioe.org>):
>>
>>> "Hugh Browton" <useneth@**.not.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:0001HW.C432695900E26738F0182648@news.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> Dear All ­
>>>>
>>>> I have written a simple website using XHTML 1.0 compliant code (I
>>>> believe).
>>>> Why is it that Safari on a Macintosh presents the images (eg):
>>>>
>>>> <img style="width: 117px; height: 178px;" alt="Tea" title="Tea"
>>>> src="Images/Web-p4p1.jpg" />
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> but that PC browsers (Internet Explorer v7, Firefox, Opera, and Safari)
>>>> cannot.
>>>
>>> As the other poster said, the problem is with your images - they are there
>>> (otherwise we'd get a 404) but they're not being processed. I'd review
>>> the
>>> options on whatever program you're using to save them and then work
>>> through
>>> the XHTML validation report above.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what the difference is but I re-saved the images from
>> GraphicConverter as "Save for Web..." and that has solved the problem.
>> ?File
>> size; ?72 dpi; ?colour-space.
>
> The problem is likely to be that you originally created them on a Mac
> and saved them with Mac byte order. That's why a Mac can see them but
> a PC can't. Using GraphicConverter to "save for the web" has saved
> them with what the Mac calls "Windows" byte order, but everywhere else
> (including Linux) just calls "normal" :-)
>


As you say, :-) indeed! Thanks.


--
regards
hugh
hugh at clarity point uk point co
(by the sea) (using Hogwasher)

Time for a new .sig tagline

Date parsed: 22/04/2008 20:31:55
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:31:55 +0100

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:45:32 +0100, Dave put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> The problem is likely to be that you originally created them on a Mac
>> and saved them with Mac byte order. That's why a Mac can see them but
>> a PC can't. Using GraphicConverter to "save for the web" has saved
>> them with what the Mac calls "Windows" byte order, but everywhere else
>> (including Linux) just calls "normal" :-)
>
>I've never had problems saving jpegs on this machine (Sun Blade 2000),
>and like a Mac, its UltraSPARC processor it is big-endian, rather than
>the little-endian of an Intel or AMD based PC.
>
>I might be wrong, but I suspect the byte ordering is defined in the JPEG
>standard and not left up to different CPUs to write data in a different
>way. I know this is the case for BMP, but I don't know for sure on JPEG.

Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as a "JPEG" file per se. JPEG
is a lossy compression method used to produce data which is then
encoded into a file. The file format commonly described as JPEG (and
usually named with a .jpg or .jpeg extension) is more correctly known
as JFIF (JPEG File Interchange Format). JFIF itself comes in several
variants, and some of these can include data which follows the
system's native endianness instead of being consistent across
platforms. Photoshop in particular is prone to creating
natively-endian image files on a Mac as it encodes a lot of additional
data (some in EXIF format, which is theoretically incompatible with
JFIF but can be kludged into the same file, and some in its own
proprietory encoding) that isn't part of the base image data. And that
in turn is because Photoshop was originally a Mac application (ie,
designed for the Motorola chipset rather than IBM/Intel), and file
interchangability with PC applications was an optional setting ("save
in Windows byte order") rather than the default.

Mark
--
Stuff, some of it good, at http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
"All the promises we break from the cradle to the grave"

Date parsed: 24/04/2008 21:49:50
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:49:50 +0100

On 21/4/08 3:55 pm, in article
0001HW.C432695900E26738F0182648@news.individual.net, "Hugh Browton"
<useneth@**.not.uk> wrote:

>
> Dear All 
>
> I have written a simple website using XHTML 1.0 compliant code (I believe).
> Why is it that Safari on a Macintosh presents the images (eg):
>
> <img style="width: 117px; height: 178px;" alt="Tea" title="Tea"
> src="Images/Web-p4p1.jpg" />
>
>
> but that PC browsers (Internet Explorer v7, Firefox, Opera, and Safari)
> cannot. And then I check with Firefox on a Macintosh and it too doesn't
> present the images - just the text title.
>
> (The whole site is: www.thecoachhouse-woodbridge.co.uk)
>
> Have I gone too far modern into XHTML for most browsers?

Not sure if you've fixed it now but one 'gotcha' I seem to recall is that if
you save images from Photoshop just using the 'Save As' command and select
jpg then they don't work in some browsers. If you use the 'Save for web'
option and select jpg then they work fine. I'm not a photoshop expert so I
don't know why this happens. All I know is that if I open the broken jpg
and re-export it using 'Save for web' then it's fine.

--
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk