On 17/02/11 02:40, Poetro wrote: > 2011/2/17 Rajat Mittal <[email protected]>: >> That doesn't make much sense to me. I mean it sort of invalidates the onload >> event. The fact that it has fired means that the image has loaded. So I >> shouldn't be required to poll inside it again. > > If every browser would work according to spec, there wont be a high > need of frameworks that abstract event handling or AJAX. I think this > is one similar case.
A timeout would be the pragmatic approach - it might work, but you don't know why. Maybe you don't want to know, as long as it works; that's a valid position. It could be a spurious browser bug, here today, gone in the next update. But if the problem persists or is cross-browser, I would be interested in why the images are giving a "loaded" signal but can't be analyzed correctly. @Rajat, did you try to isolate the problematic images and see if there are any similarities? Like color profiles, image size, resolution, file type, embedded thumbnails, etc? Are the failures cross-browser? Are they repeatable if you only try to load the specific images? stefan BTW, next time please don't attach large files here. It's not a big deal if you do it once, and the image was very relevant to your question, but this ~1MB image gets distributed to all 1266 members of the group. If everybody did that... Better to upload it to some site like imgur.com and post a link. -- LOAD"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!",8,1 RUN! -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
