[Completely OT] Problem with HTML

Greetings all. Completely OT, but knowing the vast range of knowledge here ...

I have been running a web site for about 15 years. Hobby related, very, very basic HTML. Yesterday, I added a new page, but something is wrong. Basic text and an image.

Using my XP PC, Firefox can see the text, but not the image. Not even a gap where the image should be. Chrome sees and displays the image.

Using a little Toshiba Netbook the results are identical.

Using wifey's Toshiba laptop, Firefox displays the image, but Chrome doesn't.

Son's ipad (Safari) shows the image.

Why? I have deleted the page, rewritten it, used CCleaner, recreated the image, checked the code multiple times.

The site has hundreds of pages. Only this one causes a problem.

The image itself was 'captured' from a pdf file which was created by a Mac. Capture by PSP5. I have saved the captured file as jpg, gif and tif, with no change.

This is driving me insane. The link is :

formatting link

Probably something blindingly obvious, but what?

Reply to
News
Loading thread data ...

Check blocked images.It's very easy for someone to accidentally click on Block Image instead of e.g. Save Image.

Reply to
Matty F

On Tuesday 01 October 2013 07:53 News wrote in uk.d-i-y:

Shove it through

formatting link
and fix the errors - there are 25.

That would be where I would start - sounds like you are hitting a subtle bug in one of the browsers with some page error that ordinarily does not matter.

Reply to
Tim Watts

I don't think it is that. It is not blocked on my elderly Firefox but doesn't show up. The 'page info' media tab reports advert1.gif as size unknown(not cached), dimensions 0px x 0px (scaled to 720 x 477px) and displays the picture ok in it's media preview pane. Do you have other pictures saved from the same type of pdf file? Do they work normally?

Reply to
Tahiri

The validator at

formatting link
throws up a bunch of errors

- one of which may be responsible for your vanishing image. The validator is kind of picky

The element inspector in my version of Chrome (29.something) shows a space for the image, but when you click the link to the image it seems to think that the image has dimensions of 1 pixel by 1 pixel and is a png image. However - clicking further brings up the image.

Just as a test - can you change the html to reference another image on the site that you know works ? If the page then renders correctly there's something odd about the image. If it still doesn't work then there's something odd about the page.. so try cloning a working page, removing the content, and pasting in your new content. Probably teaching granny how to suck eggs here - sorry!

These problems can be frustrating! Adrian

Reply to
Adrian Brentnall

Change the name of the image.

My Chrome didn't show it (advert.gif) until I turned off the AdBlock extension. By inference, anything with advert in the name is going to be blocked as spam.

And, FWIW, you've got a dangling at the end of the tag

Reply to
Scott M

Matty, you are a genius. On my PC, disabling Adblock on that page suddenly allowed the image to be displayed. Same on the Netbook.

This raises another question, though. Why did Adblock block that particular image, but none of the many hundreds of others, on similar pages? Adblock cannot, surely, read the text of a gif or jpg image, so it cannot see that it is an image of an advertisement. Perhaps Adblock blocked it because of the filename advert1? Next job is to rename the file and enable Adblock, to see if that works. Must walk the dog first, though :-)

Reply to
News

the name advert1 is part of the default list of blockable adverts that Adblock comes with.

Also the code is pretty vile.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Looking at the page source, I see the images are referred to using a dot notation "../../logos/brtotem.gif"

, which may be being incorrectly parsed by the browser that's showing the problem. Maybe you could hand edit the source to use the absolute URL

formatting link

Which is what FF returns when asked to "copy link location" with the source code open, rather than the relative one. The page seems to work fine here though, on Firefox running Adblock.

Reply to
John Williamson

No, that is perfectly correct and standard html notration.

Does it show the 'advert1.gif' image tho. Didnt here.

Adblock coniders it's probaly an - advert - and by default will block it.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

As others have said, it's being blocked as an advert. Calling it "advert1.gif" is the problem. Just rename the image and change the html accordingly.

-- Richard

Reply to
Richard Tobin

Thanks for ALL the comments, which are very much appreciated. The first comment, by Matty, pointed me in the right direction. Yes, Adblock was the problem, or rather, the filename was the problem. Changed that, and all is OK. Knew it would be something blindingly obvious.

Deleted :-) That is me being lazy, and copying text from one page to another, but not amending it quite enough.

Yes, I know some of the code is ugly. Generally, though, it works, on multiple devices and browsers. Poor excuse, I know. I really should, I suppose, use styles for the header, given that every page is the same, but I keep adding new pages, and the thought of going back and changing every one of them puts me off. There must be many hundreds by now.

I cannot tell you how frustrated I was yesterday. Even checked the space being hosted, to see whether I had exceeded the limit. Off on a tangent, I use an ancient program called 'Space' to check usage locally and hosted. Wonderful, tiny little program that checks anything from a file, directory, drive or whatever you want. Love it.

Reply to
News

No, he hasn't. But he does have two tags.

Reply to
Bob Eager

I don't actually think if it's a requirement to go back in time and edit one's posts when what they allude to has been changed...

Reply to
Scott M

Who are you referring to? The OP? I never edited anything...

Reply to
Bob Eager

Missing the point. The OP made the changes (and said so here) before you posted that Scott's observation was incorrect. At the time Scott made the observation, it was correct.

Tim

Reply to
Tim+

Aha, I understand. I suspected that, so it was why I said "The OP?"..

Reply to
Bob Eager

Sorry, lack of proper nouns when being facetious ;-)

Reply to
Scott M

.-)

Reply to
Bob Eager

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.