Hi Sandy, Firstly, thanks for the idea of loading the image, the creating a new element with the src as null, then injecting, then setting the src as the correct src. This makes IE work correctly.
"With respect, I don't know if I would call it a lot of trouble. As I mentioned, any time you are doing back-end image processing, you have the ability, I would say the obligation, to manage cacheability based on the way images are embedded in the pages you serve up. If you do it right, you get ultimate cacheability *plus* real-time changes. " I couldn't disagree more with this. It seems unnessacery to have a server set up where every css/js/xml file has a name change to the file when it is edited. We (almost)always edit css files and leave the filename the same. (ok there are some exceptions, but for 95% of websites that are not amazon.com this works). We assume the browser will correctly read the file correctly when the page is refreshed. Images are just another asset to a webpage like js/css/xml. Changing the name of a css file becuase it has been edited is not a "do it right" method, and I can't see any reason why images should be viewed differently. On Feb 3, 9:33 am, Sanford Whiteman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Do you know if there any documentation for this bug? > > I don't think so. But there are a few components/CMSes that attempt > workarounds for it, and I reproduced it here on a couple of machines. > > Here is your client-side workaround, if you must: insert the Element > with null `src`. Then set the `src` afterward. Clears it up for me. > > > The server side way of looking at it is interesting, I never thought > > of it from that perspective. I could change my php resize function to > > add in the string '800x600' onto the end of the filename when it > > remakes the image. > > I would not recommend using only that string. You are most likely > using lossy resampling to get the image to new dimensions, right? So > if somebody downsizes, and upsizes, the image, it is a different image > from the original. You should still add 800x600-<versionnumber>. > > > That would be a more elegant solution, although it seems a lot of > > trouble for a browser that simply won't read the size of an image in > > it's cache when I call up the getSize() function, even after a dozen > > refreshes. > > With respect, I don't know if I would call it a lot of trouble. As I > mentioned, any time you are doing back-end image processing, you have > the ability, I would say the obligation, to manage cacheability based > on the way images are embedded in the pages you serve up. If you do it > right, you get ultimate cacheability *plus* real-time changes. > > --Sandy > > ------------------------------------ > Sanford Whiteman, Chief Technologist > Broadleaf Systems, a division of > Cypress Integrated Systems, Inc. > e-mail: [email protected] > ------------------------------------
