DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26647] New: - srcKey in html:img/ tag needs matching size keys.
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26647. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26647 srcKey in html:img/ tag needs matching size keys. Summary: srcKey in html:img/ tag needs matching size keys. Product: Struts Version: 1.1 Final Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: Enhancement Priority: Other Component: Custom Tags AssignedTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ReportedBy: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On high-traffic web sites it is necessary to add the height and width of any image to allow for faster and more predictable loading. Under these circumstances, it is very difficult to manage the images using the srcKey attribute since the sizes must be either hard-coded into the tag or created using some type of obtuse code to populate the boxes. It would be much more desirable to have a sizeKey attribute where a height/width of an item would be entered into a property file in a comma delimited form (or other agreed upon format): in the property file myImage.image = /images/someFooImage.jpg myImage.image.size = 180,160 The JSP img tag would look like: html:img srcKey=myImage.image sizeKey=myImage.image.size/ We are moving a high-traffic site to struts (10-12+ million hits monthly) and this has been a thorn in our side. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26647] New: - srcKey in html:img/ tag needs matching size keys.
This looks like fun. I originally thought it said html:image instead of html:img . I noticed that html:image does not have height and width. When I look at my HTML Pocket Reference, I see only align, src and name listed for input type=image..., but from testing I know that height and width work for that tag in both mozilla and IE. Would it be worth adding height and width to the html:image tag? I'd be willing to take a whack at this one. Should this wait until after 1.2 so that can be wrapped up? I've been putting some other minor stuff on hold that I wanted to mention until after the release. If sizeKey was added to html:img, this brings up an issue. In the many places where we have sizes, there is not a key version of it. Text attributes like alt and title have resource versions like altKey and titleKey. Number attributes like size, width and height do not. While it's not a common thing to need varied sizes for numerical values, it's very plausible. Is it worth complicating the AI? Paul Sundling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26647 srcKey in html:img/ tag needs matching size keys. On high-traffic web sites it is necessary to add the height and width of any image to allow for faster and more predictable loading. Under these circumstances, it is very difficult to manage the images using the srcKey attribute since the sizes must be either hard-coded into the tag or created using some type of obtuse code to populate the boxes. It would be much more desirable to have a sizeKey attribute where a height/width of an item would be entered into a property file in a comma delimited form (or other agreed upon format): in the property file myImage.image = /images/someFooImage.jpg myImage.image.size = 180,160 The JSP img tag would look like: html:img srcKey=myImage.image sizeKey=myImage.image.size/ We are moving a high-traffic site to struts (10-12+ million hits monthly) and this has been a thorn in our side. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26647] New: - srcKey in html:img/ tag needs matching size keys.
Quoting Paul Sundling [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I originally thought it said html:image instead of html:img . I noticed that html:image does not have height and width. When I look at my HTML Pocket Reference, I see only align, src and name listed for input type=image..., but from testing I know that height and width work for that tag in both mozilla and IE. Would it be worth adding height and width to the html:image tag? Just as a matter of note, height and width should work with Netscape 4+ IE 4+ for input type=image. Looks like your pocket reference skimped on the details :) In terms of adding the two attributes to the html:image tag, I personally think it would make a useful addition... Richard. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26647] New: - srcKey in html:img/ tag needs matching size keys.
At 1:36 PM +1300 2/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Paul Sundling [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I originally thought it said html:image instead of html:img . I noticed that html:image does not have height and width. When I look at my HTML Pocket Reference, I see only align, src and name listed for input type=image..., but from testing I know that height and width work for that tag in both mozilla and IE. Would it be worth adding height and width to the html:image tag? Just as a matter of note, height and width should work with Netscape 4+ IE 4+ for input type=image. Looks like your pocket reference skimped on the details :) In terms of adding the two attributes to the html:image tag, I personally think it would make a useful addition... height and width are not valid attributes of the input tag: see http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html#h-17.4 Joe -- Joe Germuska [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://blog.germuska.com Imagine if every Thursday your shoes exploded if you tied them the usual way. This happens to us all the time with computers, and nobody thinks of complaining. -- Jef Raskin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26647] New: - srcKey in html:img/ tag needs matching size keys.
Joe Germuska wrote: At 1:36 PM +1300 2/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Paul Sundling [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I originally thought it said html:image instead of html:img . I noticed that html:image does not have height and width. When I look at my HTML Pocket Reference, I see only align, src and name listed for input type=image..., but from testing I know that height and width work for that tag in both mozilla and IE. Would it be worth adding height and width to the html:image tag? Just as a matter of note, height and width should work with Netscape 4+ IE 4+ for input type=image. Looks like your pocket reference skimped on the details :) In terms of adding the two attributes to the html:image tag, I personally think it would make a useful addition... height and width are not valid attributes of the input tag: see http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html#h-17.4 Joe I can't say I'm surprised to hear that since it wasn't in my little book. At the same time, if a given attribute is not part of the official W3C HTML spec, does that mean we shouldn't support the feature if there is browser support for it? This is more a philosophical issue on wether you're supporting the HTML standard, or the browser implementations of the standard. Is there a project stance on that? Two main browsers since version 4 is pretty good support. If it's supported even in Safari and Opera or other, less common browsers, then I would say that's wide enough browser support to definitely consider. Of course, that's irrelevant if we're coding to spec and not implementation. Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 26647] New: - srcKey in html:img/ tag needs matching size keys.
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Paul Sundling wrote: Joe Germuska wrote: At 1:36 PM +1300 2/4/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting Paul Sundling [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I originally thought it said html:image instead of html:img . I noticed that html:image does not have height and width. When I look at my HTML Pocket Reference, I see only align, src and name listed for input type=image..., but from testing I know that height and width work for that tag in both mozilla and IE. Would it be worth adding height and width to the html:image tag? Just as a matter of note, height and width should work with Netscape 4+ IE 4+ for input type=image. Looks like your pocket reference skimped on the details :) In terms of adding the two attributes to the html:image tag, I personally think it would make a useful addition... height and width are not valid attributes of the input tag: see http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/interact/forms.html#h-17.4 Joe I can't say I'm surprised to hear that since it wasn't in my little book. At the same time, if a given attribute is not part of the official W3C HTML spec, does that mean we shouldn't support the feature if there is browser support for it? This is more a philosophical issue on wether you're supporting the HTML standard, or the browser implementations of the standard. Is there a project stance on that? Yes, there is. We currently support what's in the HTML 4.01 standard, no more and no less. -- Martin Cooper Two main browsers since version 4 is pretty good support. If it's supported even in Safari and Opera or other, less common browsers, then I would say that's wide enough browser support to definitely consider. Of course, that's irrelevant if we're coding to spec and not implementation. Paul - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
