cwdjrxyz@yahoo.com wrote:
[color=blue]
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:[color=green]
>>
cwdjrxyz@yahoo.com wrote:[color=darkred]
>> > I have put up a page at
http://www.cwdjr.info/test/rotateimages.html .
>> > I added just enough code to clean up to html 4.01 transitional.[/color]
>> You should add the system identifier not to trigger Compatibility Mode.
>> And you can make that HTML 4.01 Strict, from what I can see and what the
>> W3C Validator tells me, that would be Valid, too.[/color]
>
> I was not intending to make this a serious page since I do not use
> Microsoft filters and such that most other browsers can not handle. I
> usually use PaintShop to modify images. However, just for fun, I have
> a new page at
http://www.cwdjr.info/test/rotateimages2.php . This has a
> php include to serve the page as true xhtml 1.1 on browsers that can
> handle the correct mime type application/xhtml+xml. Such browsers
> include recent versions of Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape and Opera. For
> browsers such as IE6 that can not handle this mime type, the server
> rewrites the page as html 4.01 strict. [...][/color]
Read my sig ;-) However, it would be nice of you if you showed how you did
that (maybe you post a .phps URL?). Serving "HTML compatible" XHTML 1.0 as
text/html is one thing that is quite easy, rewriting XHTML 1.1 to HTML 4.01
Strict is another.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> > I added a Microsoft conditional around all of the buttons so that the
>> > controls only show on browsers for which they are likely to work
>> > (recent IE and close relatives such as MSN 9).[/color]
>> Yes, they are not shown in my Firefox 1.5 or Opera 8.5.[color=darkred]
>> > I used a fair sized image of about 42 KB. The response to the buttons
>> > is rapid. In addition to rotation by multiples of 90 degrees, a morror
>> > image also can be produced. Most of the script is hidden in the IE
>> > built-in filters. The only script you have to write is in connection
>> > with the targets for the various buttons.[/color]
>>
>> But it is probably not necessary and makes less sense to refer to the
>> `div'[/color][/color]
^^^^^^^^
Hrmpf, it is better not to use Google Groups for posting.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> element. Filters can be applied directly to the `img' element. At least
>> that worked for me with IE 4.0 filters ever since; I do not use DirectX
>> filters for backwards compatibility.[/color]
>
> If you apply the filter element to the image, it will rotate the image
> only. If you apply the filters at a paragraph or division level, both
> images and text in the division or paragraph will be rotated. There is
> a comment about this in the new page source code.[/color]
Of course, that is why I said that. When I rotate an image, I would not
want its description to rotate with it so that I have to bend my neck to
read. But that's me :)
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Referring to the `img' element would also allow you to refrain from using
>> the IE-proprietary referencing and use document.images['myimg'] instead,
>> provided that you gave the `img' the name `myimg'.[/color]
>
> I tried using document.images['myimg'] as you suggested. [...] Everything
> is at first well when you use the IE6(actually I use the SBC/Yahoo DSL
> browser of my IP which takes over IE6 when you use their DSL service.
> It is supposed to be about the same as IE6 in response to code).
> However, when you click any of the buttons that calls the filters, you
> get an IE popup saying that there is a script error for the code on the
> line that generated the button, and that it does not understand the
> object.[/color]
It may be necessary that you use the `name' attribute instead of the `id'
attribute for IE, hence my saying to give the `img' _element_ (not: tag)
that name (by and in its start tag). I would be very surprised if it still
did not work then since that referencing is part of DOM Level 0, supported
since IE 3.0.
[color=blue]
> Moreover, after a few more clicks, it turns script off, you can
> not view the browser home page, and get a message that the page
> can not be displayed because script is off.[/color]
Maybe there is a checkbox in the error message dialog that allows
to disable scripting at all for this "erroneous" document. I
remember to have seen such before but I do not remember where.
[color=blue]
> You have to reboot for things to return to normal. [...][/color]
No, probably you have not. Just re-enable Active Scripting in the
Options and reload without using the cache (Ctrl+F5 IIRC).
[color=blue]
> The page has some extra stuff to fill it out a bit and illustrate that
> valid code can be written to work on most newer browsers for media such
> as audio and flash. You do not have to resort to ActiveX or embed
> codes. The page degrades well on most recent browsers if script is off,
> if the WMP player is not installed, or if a flash player is not
> installed. For example, if you use the W3C's Amaya browser with none of
> these things installed, you just get a plain page with the image of the
> bird. You would never know that flash, audio, or image rotation were
> included, except for the 2 optional text messages on the page
> concerning them or if you view the source code.[/color]
True, and well done for that part. However, I do have the mplayerplug-in
3.17 installed that is able and configured to handle .wax, but see/hear
no player object in Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8)
Gecko/20051224 Debian/1.5.dfsg-3 Firefox/1.5 Mnenhy/0.7.3.0. (The Flash
movie is properly displayed through the Shockwave Flash 7.0 r61 plugin.)
This is probably because of type="application/x-mplayer2" that should be
type="audio/x-ms-wax".
PointedEars
--
realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
-- Bjoern Hoehrmann
