My point was it's still valid HTML - I didn't mention space - that can be countered in other ways (removing gap lines, making sure tags read <img src="address"> - without height and width tags (the image should be smaller, that would save even more space), etc.
Anyway, if sites don't have enough space, what's stopping them using multiple accounts like TV Ark?
Yes but it's not just space, we're talking bandwidth here too, which is completely different. No point in spreading the pages over various servers etc because the bandwidth usage will still be the same.
Then why is TV Ark hardly ever down? I think the bandwidth limt would bbe per-server, so it does help.
How is that vaguely relevant. The reason they spread accross various accounts is down to two reasons, one to store files in several places and another to keep bandwidths per provider down.
The total bandwidth will still be the same, it will just be spread throughout various quotas.
If you have a bloated site but spread it, it will exceed the amount of bandwidth you really need, hence increasing total costs.
My point was it's still valid HTML - I didn't mention space - that can be countered in other ways (removing gap lines, making sure tags read <img src="address"> - without height and width tags (the image should be smaller, that would save even more space), etc.
Anyway, if sites don't have enough space, what's stopping them using multiple accounts like TV Ark?
I was always tought to add the width and height tags, so the browser could allocate the correct space for the images, otherwise it would keep having to re-render the page everytime an image was downloaded. This is espeiclly important for people on old hardware especially when connected via dial-up.
THe resason for not using more accounts is to save money, if you are 5 megs or so short, then your ISP space may suffice, but for something like the BBC, using a helluva lot of space and bandwidth as it is, could make huge savings by getting rid of excess tags (i'm not saying the BBC is using extra tags, just an example)
I think you do need to put the height & width tags in. I also remember I designed a page a while back. When I opened it in Netscape (I think it was) the page didn't render properly. The images without tags just displayed at something like 32x32 or something.
Hmm, that's odd. Check http://members.lycos.co.uk/digifiend/DN - the images have no height and width tags, so I think I need to know if I have that problem you describe. Wherever I am, they always seem to use IE, so I've never tested it in other browsers.
Hmm, that's odd. Check http://members.lycos.co.uk/digifiend/DN - the images have no height and width tags, so I think I need to know if I have that problem you describe. Wherever I am, they always seem to use IE, so I've never tested it in other browsers.
Displays fine in Mozzie Firebird, but keeps jumping as the images resize. The rainbow colured DN logo takes about 20 seconds to load up, and that's on broadband
But it's only a GIF! It appears at
exactly
the same time as the text for me - but the Lycos ad-frame meant the page took 15 seconds to load - on broadband - I don't know if you got the frame, but Lycos, not me, is certainly the problem here.
The frame is also causing the jumping. What a bummer.
But it's only a GIF! It appears at
exactly
the same time as the text for me - but the Lycos ad-frame meant the page took 15 seconds to load - on broadband - I don't know if you got the frame, but Lycos, not me, is certainly the problem here.
The frame is also causing the jumping. What a bummer.
hmm, the frame loads fine, as does your text, but the text goes from something like this
[code:1:71bab4094a]
PPmsanfndsflk
PPnjkgfdnjkfnd
ndngjkfgjknjkrgfjk
jgrenjrkfghjktrnjk
jofkdgfkjgkfjklgjgfkl
[/code:1:71bab4094a]
to
[code:1:71bab4094a]
PPPPPPPPPjewfkef
PPPPPPPPPmkfmkf
PPPPPPPPPkglfgkfkl
PPPPPPPPPmkfdmfk
PPPPPPPPPkfdlkddkfl
PPPPPPPPPkdkkdlkfl
PPPPPPPPPkflkflklgkl
PPPPPPPPPkdkkgflkd
[/code:1:71bab4094a]
where P is the picture.
My point was it's still valid HTML - I didn't mention space - that can be countered in other ways (removing gap lines, making sure tags read <img src="address"> - without height and width tags (the image should be smaller, that would save even more space), etc.
I was always tought to add the width and height tags, so the browser could allocate the correct space for the images, otherwise it would keep having to re-render the page everytime an image was downloaded. This is espeiclly important for people on old hardware especially when connected via dial-up.
Indeed - you should use width and height so the image placeholder deisplays fine while the page renders.
Spiring - what you are describing is pulling as much stuff from the code as possible. What we are talking about is pulling NEEDLESS stuff from the code. There is no reason to define font styles over and over again and especially in empty cells of a table.
Sounds like the tags were automatically added when he saved the file. Some programs (Microsoft Word and Frontpage, Macromedia Dreamweaver, etc) add their own tags when you save. That might be The TV Room's problem. If that's so, it isn't the webmaster's fault, so leave him alone!
