D''Andrew "Dave" Thompson
2006-Jan-24 04:37 UTC
[Rails] [MacOSX] Firefox Not Diplaying Images
Forgive the random question, but for those of you Mac OS X users... Does anyone else have a problem with Firefox 1.5 not displaying pictures/graphics embedded on web pages. Safari doesn''t seem to have a problem with them. For example, my blog appears correctly in Safari, however Firefox drops background images. Clues? Thanks. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ D''Andrew "Dave" Thompson http://dathompson.blogspot.com
On 2006-01-23 23:36:12 -0500, "D''Andrew \"Dave\" Thompson" <dandrew.thompson@gmail.com> said:> Forgive the random question, but for those of you Mac OS X users... > > Does anyone else have a problem with Firefox 1.5 not displaying > pictures/graphics embedded on web pages. Safari doesn''t seem to have a > problem with them. > > For example, my blog appears correctly in Safari, however Firefox > drops background images. > > Clues? Thanks.I had a similar issue... turned out I was using a baseref tag in the <head> section of my layout. Safari was ignoring this for CSS stylesheets, which appear higher in the <head> tag, but Firefox was applying the baseref to everything, including CSS. You shouldn''t use baseref anyway, but check it out to make sure :) Ben
D''Andrew "Dave" Thompson
2006-Jan-24 06:21 UTC
[Rails] Re: [MacOSX] Firefox Not Diplaying Images
It seems that the default setting for Firefox 1.5 is to only allow the display of images from the originating website. Hmm, with the advent of Web 2.0 and the potential for many more elements to be called in from other locations, it would seem more reasonable to make the default to except them. But that''s just me. Thanks guys. Dave On 1/23/06, Benoit Gagnon <b.gagnon@gmail.com> wrote:> On 2006-01-23 23:36:12 -0500, "D''Andrew \"Dave\" Thompson" > <dandrew.thompson@gmail.com> said: > > > Forgive the random question, but for those of you Mac OS X users... > > > > Does anyone else have a problem with Firefox 1.5 not displaying > > pictures/graphics embedded on web pages. Safari doesn''t seem to have a > > problem with them. > > > > For example, my blog appears correctly in Safari, however Firefox > > drops background images. > > > > Clues? Thanks. > > I had a similar issue... turned out I was using a baseref tag in the > <head> section of my layout. Safari was ignoring this for CSS > stylesheets, which appear higher in the <head> tag, but Firefox was > applying the baseref to everything, including CSS. You shouldn''t use > baseref anyway, but check it out to make sure :) > > Ben > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ D''Andrew "Dave" Thompson http://dathompson.blogspot.com
Benoit Gagnon wrote:> I had a similar issue... turned out I was using a baseref tag in the > <head> section of my layout. Safari was ignoring this for CSS > stylesheets, which appear higher in the <head> tag, but Firefox was > applying the baseref to everything, including CSS. You shouldn''t use > baseref anyway, but check it out to make sure :)That''s actually invalid HTML, which would explain why the browsers handle it differently. From the spec:> When present, the BASE element must appear in the HEAD section of an > HTML document, before any element that refers to an external source. > The path information specified by the BASE element only affects URIs > in the document where the element appears.(http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#edef-BASE) Why do you say it shouldn''t be used? -- Alex
On 2006-01-24 03:38:34 -0500, Alex Young <alex@blackkettle.org> said:> Benoit Gagnon wrote: >> I had a similar issue... turned out I was using a baseref tag in the >> <head> section of my layout. Safari was ignoring this for CSS >> stylesheets, which appear higher in the <head> tag, but Firefox was >> applying the baseref to everything, including CSS. You shouldn''t use >> baseref anyway, but check it out to make sure :) > > That''s actually invalid HTML, which would explain why the browsers > handle it differently. From the spec: > >> When present, the BASE element must appear in the HEAD section of an >> HTML document, before any element that refers to an external source. >> The path information specified by the BASE element only affects URIs >> in the document where the element appears. > > (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#edef-BASE)I don''t remember the W3C validator catching this... maybe it doesn''t check the element''s position ?> > Why do you say it shouldn''t be used?Because Rails takes care of the fancy URL rewriting for you, it will most certainly fail with rails helpers unless your app is really on "app.server.com/" and not something like "www.server.com/more/complicated/url". Even more cumbersome if the location of the app changes from development to production.
Benoit Gagnon wrote:>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#edef-BASE) > > I don''t remember the W3C validator catching this... maybe it doesn''t > check the element''s position ?Quite possibly. In any event, the validator''s not the browser or the spec :-)>> Why do you say it shouldn''t be used? > > Because Rails takes care of the fancy URL rewriting for you, it will > most certainly fail with rails helpers unless your app is really on > "app.server.com/" and not something like > "www.server.com/more/complicated/url". Even more cumbersome if the > location of the app changes from development to production.Oh, I see what you mean. I thought you meant in general. -- Alex
On 2006-01-24 07:52:50 -0500, Alex Young <alex@blackkettle.org> said:> Benoit Gagnon wrote: >>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/links.html#edef-BASE) >> >> I don''t remember the W3C validator catching this... maybe it doesn''t >> check the element''s position ? > Quite possibly. In any event, the validator''s not the browser or the spec :-)Nope. But it is much more enjoyable than reading W3C spec documents :-)> >>> Why do you say it shouldn''t be used? >> >> Because Rails takes care of the fancy URL rewriting for you, it will >> most certainly fail with rails helpers unless your app is really on >> "app.server.com/" and not something like >> "www.server.com/more/complicated/url". Even more cumbersome if the >> location of the app changes from development to production. > > Oh, I see what you mean. I thought you meant in general.