images inserted with [img] size
category: general [glöplog]
hey, what's the fuck with the retarded size of images inserted with [img] tags in posts ?
now every 16x16 is zoomed to death
now every 16x16 is zoomed to death
Don't use IE if it bothers you
That's because ps fixed it.
before they weren't shown in actual size
now it is fixed, read: bigger
now it is fixed, read: bigger
i'm using safari for the record
make a user CSS and be done with it.
Problem solved.
Code:
set in Edit > Preferences > Advanced > Style Sheet..bbimage img{width:auto !important;height:auto !important;}Problem solved.
yeah well, now i have to fix smart fixes from others :)
thx, problem solved indeed
thx, problem solved indeed
Internet Explorer, Firefox 2, Safari, Konqueror and Opera all show the images zoomed.
Firefox 3 however, shows them the correct size..
Firefox 3 however, shows them the correct size..
guess which one follows the css standards properly.
guess what happens if you remove the gecko-only "-moz-max-content" value for "content-width" ;)
it's kind of hard for other browsers to show stuff correctly (even in future versions) if you use vendor-specific CSS values.
it's kind of hard for other browsers to show stuff correctly (even in future versions) if you use vendor-specific CSS values.
Reminds me of "Works best with Internet Explorer 5.5" days...
and max-content isn't even in the css3 draft yet, it's only been discussed on its mailing list...
stijn: we have large as fuck images that b0rk the table width everywhere.
there. this should do the trick. i hope.
any complaints left?
Code:
.bbimage img {
max-width: 95%;
max-width: -moz-max-content;
_max-width: auto;
width: 100%;
_width: ;
_height: ;
}
there. this should do the trick. i hope.
any complaints left?
(for those interested, the proposal is here. looks like a useful addition when it becomes available)
ps: sorry to disappoint but I think you've got CSS mojo wrong. The following rule clearly forces the width of images to 95%.
Code:
.bbimage img {
max-width: 95%;
width: 100%;
max-width: -moz-max-content;
_width: 100%;
_height: auto;
}well, let me try that, but i think it'll b0rk stuff on ie
yes, it was b0rking, atleast on ie7.
back to my above suggestion. o_O
back to my above suggestion. o_O
b0rking ie6, not ie7, i dont have ie7 nor ie8 installed. nor do i wish to.
how about simply having:
/* regular CSS */
/!\ I've not tested the IE expression, but that's basically the idea
/* regular CSS */
Code:
Conditionnal comment in the markup.bbimage img
{
max-width: 95%;
}Code:
<!--[if lte IE 8]><style type="text/css">
.bbimage img
{
width:expression( Math.min(this.clientWidth,this.parentNode.clientWidth*.95|0)+'px');
}
</style><![endif]-->/!\ I've not tested the IE expression, but that's basically the idea
I think IE8 get the max-width right, so the CC should be <!--[if lt IE 8]>
stijn: dude, the -max-content is purely academic optimization for ff3, it gets ignored everywhere else. the rest of the css should supposedly work properly on its own with just max-width: 95%; width: 100%; but it doesnt, because the browsers dont follow the standard: if you set max-width the browsers stretch the pic to match the border instead of limiting the pics that are higher width than the container width. i have no deep css knowldedge but this is nothing a few google searches wouldnt explicitly warn you about being br0ken when trying to find a hotlinking image max-width css rule that works on all browsers properly. in fact everyone seems to advise to do server size linking and batch resize everything to avoid handling this with css hacks, which i refuse to consider as a solution.
p01: because last time i tried to javascripted anything into the css people complained their browser crashed.
plus it needs to handle % not pixels.
also i would have to install all ie versions to test and i dont want to install malware on my machine ;)
server side* linking