Any particular reason why IMG SRC was disabled?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

It's easier to use (if you know html) and usually faster than ihttp. Also, to my knowledge (albeit limited), ihttp doesn't allow image size control, whereas IMG SRC does. Why disable it as usable code, then?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:07 (nineteen years ago) link

if it was disabled? Anyone? Bueller? This just happened so I'm assuming whomever responsible is around. Seems like a rather immature way to make a point (not that I would do any different, but still...).

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:14 (nineteen years ago) link

see the thread on max image sizes!

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:18 (nineteen years ago) link

It was disabled so that ILX can check to see how big images are, and link-instead-of-embed images greater than 800x600. ihttp takes longer, but frankly anything that slows down the rate at which images are posted is fine by me.

― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:19 (nineteen years ago) link

I was planning on announcing this somewhere but ran out of time.

― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:20 (nineteen years ago) link

so you're taking away any ability to make images smaller than 800x600 if necessary?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:20 (nineteen years ago) link

xpost an announcement would've been nice, yeah.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:21 (nineteen years ago) link

so you're taking away any ability to make images smaller than 800x600 if necessary?

Yep.

― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:38 (nineteen years ago) link

why?

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:40 (nineteen years ago) link

In fairness to Andrew, resizing an image does nothing for the actual size in megabytes that a photo will take up, hence it does nothing for download time.

In fairness to hstencil, um I kind of only used IMG SRC as well, I don't even know how to use ihttp. Granted I don't post THAT many photos, especially since I deleted my image directory on my website and have kind of quarantined myself to one specialty board, so it won't affect me badly, but I can understand why a lot of people might favor using IMG SRC.

― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:41 (nineteen years ago) link

I like using IMG SRC mainly because it allows control over the images. Yes that can be used to make images bigger, but it doesn't have to be used solely that way.

PS. to Ally it was disabled across ILX, not just ILE or ILM.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:45 (nineteen years ago) link

its not like it is THAT much hard to make img src behave like ihttp but have the same functionality and STILL allow user resizing within reasonable bounds

― ¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿ (ex , Thursday, 1 July 2004 03:53 (nineteen years ago) link

no, i like IMG SRC for these same reasons, which is why i never bothered to figure out ihttp.

― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Thursday, 1 July 2004 04:01 (nineteen years ago) link

There's nothing to figure out with using ihttp. You just take the URL of your image, and put an 'i' in front. Easy.

Jon, I know it's not too hard to make img src behave in the same way, but I thought I'd wait until I rework quite a bit of the code before delving in there.

― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 1 July 2004 04:09 (nineteen years ago) link

Uh I use img src as well... dammit I'm never going to remember to do it the other way! Oh well.

― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 1 July 2004 04:13 (nineteen years ago) link

this new ihttp thing blocked this image:

http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/hadith/nahjul-balagha-for-kids/jihad.gif

which is only 360x358.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 1 July 2004 04:14 (nineteen years ago) link

"hey i think i'll invade iraq without thinking it out first"

― ¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿ (ex , Thursday, 1 July 2004 04:18 (nineteen years ago) link

FFS Jon its not THAT bad.

― Trayce (trayce), Thursday, 1 July 2004 04:21 (nineteen years ago) link

ok this ihttp thing didn't work for me, it gave a bunch of "failed stream load" or somethign errors and it is annoying, i will never post a photo again i fear.

― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Thursday, 1 July 2004 05:32 (nineteen years ago) link

this new ihttp thing blocked this image:

There will be casualties, as I'm sure php's getimagesize() function is far from perfect.

i will never post a photo again i fear

CRISIS! You might just have to link it then, and then somebody might be forced to click on that link to see the image. This is surely a travesty.

"hey i think i'll invade iraq without thinking it out first"

Hahahahahahahaha!

― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 1 July 2004 07:56 (nineteen years ago) link

thanks for all your time and effort andrew, i know its time consuming

― electroclash girls, underground resistance, text message, ronan, glastonbur (gar, Thursday, 1 July 2004 11:03 (nineteen years ago) link

(yea, thank you andrew.)

― ¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿¥¤±²£¢Ð¼æ®ª«¶Þ÷³¹ß½Ø×©§¾¿ (ex , Thursday, 1 July 2004 11:40 (nineteen years ago) link

There will be casualties, as I'm sure php's getimagesize() function is far from perfect.

far from perfect /= doesn't even work.

― hstencil (hstencil), Thursday, 1 July 2004 13:28 (nineteen years ago) link

andrew, your sarcasm was unnecessary.

have any of you moderators/board owners ever thought of SHUTTING THE BOARD THE FUCK DOWN? since the entire enterprise, judging by every thread on this board right now, seems to be completely taxing all of your patiences.

― Allyzay Science Explosion (allyzay), Thursday, 1 July 2004 13:41 (nineteen years ago) link

Now let's not go THAT far...

But seriously, the ihttp thing really borks up if you don't give it the right URL for the image in question, I've noticed. If the image in question isn't there it just spits a string of gibberish at you and then mangles the resulting post, instead of telling you during processing, "HEY DUDE, that photo's not there WTF" or something that allows you to fix it up first. Unless that's been changed recently.

― Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Thursday, 1 July 2004 13:49 (nineteen years ago) link

Ally, do you hate fun?

(I'm just playing with you)

― Andrew (enneff), Thursday, 1 July 2004 14:32 (nineteen years ago) link

.. and then they did!

― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 1 July 2004 15:01 (nineteen years ago) link

This thread has been locked by an administrator

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.