Re: wipeout img (was Re: Thanks all)
Kjetil: > _I_ know that, but some of the people who create content I'm > interested in, don't. I guess I could run everything through tidy or > similar before giving it to Plucker, but it seems a bit overkill and > inconvenient. Better than that, if some recalcitrant web authors are still using such tricks *and* not setting alt tags, why not send them an email? alt tags -- required for new pages since 1997... -- MJR
Re: wipeout img (was Re: Thanks all)
"David A. Desrosiers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't know, I don't care too much about spacer.gif, blank.gif, 1x1.gif > > and all those other images commonly used in bad HTML... I think a > > switch to get rid of images completely would harm noone and help > > someone. > > That's not HTML. HTML is meant for presentation, not > layout. When people use those silly 1px-by-1px invisible gifs to > move their tables and frames and graphics around, it shows how > little they actually know about HTML (the specification, as well as > designing in it) itself. _I_ know that, but some of the people who create content I'm interested in, don't. I guess I could run everything through tidy or similar before giving it to Plucker, but it seems a bit overkill and inconvenient. Kjetil T.
RE: wipeout img (was Re: Thanks all)
I put my vote in for a commandline switch to allow the [alt_tag] or [img] to be stripped from the output. Best wishes, Robert
Re: wipeout img (was Re: Thanks all)
> I don't know, I don't care too much about spacer.gif, blank.gif, 1x1.gif > and all those other images commonly used in bad HTML... I think a > switch to get rid of images completely would harm noone and help > someone. That's not HTML. HTML is meant for presentation, not layout. When people use those silly 1px-by-1px invisible gifs to move their tables and frames and graphics around, it shows how little they actually know about HTML (the specification, as well as designing in it) itself. /d
Re: wipeout img (was Re: Thanks all)
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There should be something to mark that an image existed, in my > opinion. Maybe a command line option which defaults to "[img]" is > the way to go, but dropping [img] markers is nasty. I don't know, I don't care too much about spacer.gif, blank.gif, 1x1.gif and all those other images commonly used in bad HTML... I think a switch to get rid of images completely would harm noone and help someone. Kjetil T.
Re: wipeout img (was Re: Thanks all)
Brian: > It would be a bad standard if it required everyone to change all > their old pages every time the standard changed. Where did I say it was required? I just said that pages that are that old probably have other problems... however, I suspect that the problem here is badly written HTML, rather than merely old. > is what to do in that case? You've got a completely free hand for > rendering illegal HTML, so you might as well pick something useful. There should be something to mark that an image existed, in my opinion. Maybe a command line option which defaults to "[img]" is the way to go, but dropping [img] markers is nasty. -- MJR
Re: wipeout img (was Re: Thanks all)
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 01:20:18AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Brian: > > An alt attribute is required in HTML 4.01, but not in HTML 3.2. > > Any page still written in a language obsoleted four years ago probably has > other problems than not looking as good as it could in Plucker. I'm not an HTML expert, but I thought that you could specify in a header which version of the language you were using, and the browser should render it according to that standard? It would be a bad standard if it required everyone to change all their old pages every time the standard changed. Anyway, the python code is already aware that alt tags might be missing, perhaps in violation of the HTML standard; the question is what to do in that case? You've got a completely free hand for rendering illegal HTML, so you might as well pick something useful. Brian
Re: wipeout img (was Re: Thanks all)
Brian: > An alt attribute is required in HTML 4.01, but not in HTML 3.2. Any page still written in a language obsoleted four years ago probably has other problems than not looking as good as it could in Plucker. I get slightly irritated by HTML 4.01's continued use, but there's little excuse for still using 3.2, is there? Such problems should be noticeable, so you can notify the authors... -- MJR
Re: wipeout img (was Re: Thanks all)
> i have yet to take a look at the src yet (hopefuly this weekend) but just so > i've got this clear, plucker will list the alt text if one exists and then > the dreded '[img]' if one doesnt exist? well why cant we just drop the > '[img]' thing all togeather (like dirk is doing) why is that so bad? and if I agree. HTML parsing is more art than science anyway. Bill
Re: wipeout img (was Re: Thanks all)
i have yet to take a look at the src yet (hopefuly this weekend) but just so i've got this clear, plucker will list the alt text if one exists and then the dreded '[img]' if one doesnt exist? well why cant we just drop the '[img]' thing all togeather (like dirk is doing) why is that so bad? and if that is not to standard then could we just add in a '--noimgtag' to do this instead of the current '--noimg' ? is this something that the community wants enough to do or should i just comment out the lines that dirk sugessted and call it a day?
Re: wipeout img (was Re: Thanks all)
On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 10:42:49AM +, MJ Ray wrote: > Dirk: > > "Me too". I just commented out the following lines in > > /usr/lib/python2.0/site-packages/PyPlucker/PluckerDocs.py: > > Argh! You're fixing the wrong problem! The real problem is not > plucker generating "img", but the document you are converting not > specifying the contents of the alt attribute, which I believe is > mandatory, even if it is set to null "". An alt attribute is required in HTML 4.01, but not in HTML 3.2.
Re: wipeout img (was Re: Thanks all)
Hi there! MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Argh! You're fixing the wrong problem! Hehe, well, no. My problem were the [img]s, fixed now. "Works for me". Problem solved. I would not check it into CVS though. Cheers, Krid
Re: wipeout img (was Re: Thanks all)
Dirk: > "Me too". I just commented out the following lines in > /usr/lib/python2.0/site-packages/PyPlucker/PluckerDocs.py: Argh! You're fixing the wrong problem! The real problem is not plucker generating "img", but the document you are converting not specifying the contents of the alt attribute, which I believe is mandatory, even if it is set to null "". Fix the HTML to actually be HTML (rather than this bastard not-quite-HTML) and Plucker will happily do what you want. -- MJR
Re: wipeout img (was Re: Thanks all)
ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i know that "--noimage" will not parse the images but i still get '[img]'
> where the image was, for websites i can kinda deal with it but its anoying,
"Me too". I just commented out the following lines in
/usr/lib/python2.0/site-packages/PyPlucker/PluckerDocs.py:
if value.has_key ('alt'):
data.append (value['alt'])
#else:<--- here (line 650)
#data.append ('[img]')<--- and here
Would be nice to make it configurable on the command line (like
--no-imgtags), but I haven't (yet) grokked Python and Plucker source
enough to contribute that.
HTH,
Krid
wipeout img (was Re: Thanks all)
i know that "--noimage" will not parse the images but i still get '[img]' where the image was, for websites i can kinda deal with it but its anoying, but it realy bugs me when i parse local files for reading. so what i'm looking at doing is durring the parsing to just wipe out the '' tags before the parsing, but i'll need to look at the source and see if i can even do that if not i'll just wip up a perl script that will do it instead but that would be for local files. ben~
