Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Are you creating file names that have spaces in them? That's a web no-no.
It looks as if thatmight be the case with those %20 things in the path names. That's either a
space or someother coding some web browsers don't like.
> 2003-12-15-14:12:55 Aaron Sandler:
>> Oh dear. I'm not sure what the problem is. I just checked them on
>> two different computers and they both work. (Windows machines
>> running internet explorer.) That page was created using photoshop's
>> automatic web photo gallery thing.
>>
>> Do any of you web gurus know what's wrong?
>
> Have a look at the paths to the pictures. Here's the URL given for one
> of the thumbnails:
>
> http://www.duke.edu/~ajs2/Pix2003/thumbnails\ahh%20tree.jpg
>
> ...and here's the URL given for the underlying photo:
>
> http://www.duke.edu/~ajs2/Pix2003/pages\ahh%20tree.htm
>
> Note the backslashes ("\") where the proper separator between
> directory ("folder") levels is the slash ("/"). Backslashes used this
> way are a Windows (and DOS before it) thing.
>
> A URL like:
>
> http://www.duke.edu/~ajs2/Pix2003/pages/ahh%20tree.htm
>
> works fine. Oh, note the "%20", which is an encoding of a space
> character. Having space characters in file and directory names
> generally works, encoded as above, but avoiding them can reduce the
> likelihood of some other classes of problem.
>
> If some browsers displayed this page as you intended (to distinguish
> this from "correctly"), I can only guess that the browsers have some
> workaround built-in: perhaps they try the URL as written, then rewrite
> it with slashes instead of backslashes and try again if the target
> wasn't found?
>
> This sort of browser hack seems like a bad idea to me -- it would mask
> errors in sites, and, as seen here, allow you view your page before
> publishing the address publicly and think it would load properly when
> it actually wouldn't. Were I prone to anti-Microsoft conspiracy
> theory, I'd note that this would work out well for them: page
> hierarchies incorrectly using the Windows separator convention would
> view fine from other Windows machines, leading to a perception that the
> non-Microsoft software which doesn't show them as hoped is what is
> broken, when the opposite is the case.
>
> Consider trying a few browsers for your personal testing, or at least
> one from the Mozilla family, which seems particularly close to
> standards-compliant these days:
>
> http://mozilla.org/
>
> Firebird and the main Mozilla branch each have their appeal.
>
> -Jeff
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html