David Wahler wrote: > Xavier Morel wrote: > >>Steve Holden wrote: >> >>>Luiz Geron wrote: >>> >>>>I don't have experience on this, but I think that you can make the >>>>script return the image "contents" directly to the img tag, without >>>>passing it to a img file, so you can use something like this: >>>> >>>><img src="script_that_return_image_contents"> >>>> >>>>wich saves some processing and I/O. >>>> >>> >>>No it doesn't, because the script that generates the graphic is then a >>>different script from the one that generates the referring HTML. I agree >>>that scripted generation of the graphical content is a viable option >>>that I overlooked, though it seems from the OP's inquiry that he already >>>uses CGI to generate the HTML. >>> >>>regards >>> Steve >> >>Generate inline base64 encoded images in your HTML page and you're done. >>(yes, this is ugly, but it generates both HTML and graphics in the same >>script) > > > I believe that won't work with Internet Explorer (although it's been a > while since I checked). > Nowadays I tend to reject non-portable solutions without really thinking about them. This can be a bugger, as sometimes a non-portable solution would do, but generally speaking I prefer to talk in terms that make sense on as many platforms as possible.
In this instance I did completely overlook data: URLs. Only the OP knows whether they would help in that specific case, so the suggestion might have been useful. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +44 150 684 7255 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC www.holdenweb.com PyCon TX 2006 www.python.org/pycon/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list