[MacOSX] Firefox Not Diplaying Images

Rails
1

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
2

On 2006-01-23 23:36:12 -0500, “D’Andrew "Dave" Thompson”
[email protected] 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

section of my layout. Safari was ignoring this for CSS stylesheets, which appear higher in the 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

3

Benoit G. wrote:

I had a similar issue… turned out I was using a baseref tag in the

section of my layout. Safari was ignoring this for CSS stylesheets, which appear higher in the 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.

(Links in HTML documents)

Why do you say it shouldn’t be used?

4

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 G. [email protected] wrote:

drops background images.

Rails mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails

–

D'Andrew "Dave" Thompson
http://dathompson.blogspot.com
5

On 2006-01-24 03:38:34 -0500, Alex Y.
[email protected] said:

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.

(Links in HTML documents)

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.

6

Benoit G. wrote:

(Links in HTML documents)

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 :slight_smile:

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.

7

On 2006-01-24 07:52:50 -0500, Alex Y.
[email protected] said:

Benoit G. wrote:

(Links in HTML documents)

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 :slight_smile:

Nope. But it is much more enjoyable than reading W3C spec documents :slight_smile: