In article <5223f8af84bbai...@argonet.co.uk>, Brian Bailey <bbai...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > > I ran the html file which was with the message, which appears as an > > > attchment, in !Pluto, in NetSurf. The BMP file was also an > > > attachment to the message. NetSurf tried to load the file. End of. > > OK. But an html message or web page shouldn't contain BMP images. > On what basis shouldn't it, please? It's the first time I've seen a BMP > file employed in this way. If this is likely to become a more common > procedure then surely NetSurf developers would wish to know, yes? Like an Acorn Sprite, a BMP is an /uncompressed/ proprietary format so it is bad form to use them in web pages or in html emails. BMPs do work though, as every browser seems to be able to render them. Usually. Some web counters, for example, do use the BMP format but those are usually tiny files which arguably don't matter so much. http://www.htmlgoodies.com/tutorials/web_graphics/article.php/3479931/Image-Formats.htm Perhaps in the hiatus caused by compuserve's proprietary stance about GIFs, and before PNGs were widespread, some people in fear of being sued for using GIF may have turned to BMP instead (they are most likely using windoze, after all). Sometimes they would have been better than 'the other choice': there is little worse than somebody using a heavily compressed JPEG for a graphic. Such as this: http://openads.webmarketingpublications.co.uk/www/delivery/ai.php?filename=stage_photography.jpg&contenttype=jpeg Blow that up and compare it to their graphic here: http://openads.webmarketingpublications.co.uk/www/delivery/ck.php?n=0ddb8d1 It would seem that one web advertising company applies terrible lossy compression to the ad you send them and makes your images look horrible. TBH it often doesn't really matter if BMPs are used unless fools send huge uncompressed photos in this way. You could be looking at a 30MB instead of a 0.5MB download but generally its nothing to get worked up about! > > I expect that Internet Explorer might open them, but then it'll > > handle URLs containing backslashes. So the problem lies with whatever > > lump of shit (Outlook Express?) sent the message. I'm not surprised > > that NetSurf barfed at it. If it was an HTML email then presumably the software simply embedded the image the user threw at it. Hardly the program's fault, or do you expect email software to process image file format translation to cope for people who don't know the 'rules' better? ;-) > > Your correspondent could do with a little education too. As could many Windoze Lusers. About everything. ;-D > Not my problem. It was commercial, thus drawing my attention to the > event. Would there be any point in telling a suit that he's sending out files in formats he /perhaps/ shouldn't? Only if you can tell him he's losing potential sales. Unfortunately there is no easy way (under RISC OS) to reliably create html attachments with embedded images which work in Pluto/NetSurf, without wrapping them up in a zip file. Merely attaching a web page and its images to a message doesn't work: the links in the HTML have to be correctly written and this is done by windoze and other software if it's used correctly. I suspect simple attachments were attempted by the sender. Not NetSurf's fault. Sorry for long post. -- Tim Hill .............................................................. www.timil.com
