Correct img format for browser widget.

[jonathandlynch at gmail.com]

Hi James,

Just a quick note - you can set the max-width of images in CSS. That will limit their size with just one line.

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 16, 2017, at 11:42 PM, James Hale via use-livecode <use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> 
> Thank you so much Hermann and Jonathan
> 
> It took me a little time but I worked out what to do after looking at your suggestions.
> 
> The fact that setting the htmltext of the browser widget breaks the img URL's makes sense from a security and logical point of view.
> 
> I then tried Jonathan's technique of using the image data. 
> This worked a treat but for some files was quite slow on my larger files.
> e.g. one html had 200 images. It took some 20 secs for the browser to load.
> 
> So I thought I would try Hermann's later suggesting of just saving the file as an html and setting the URL of the browser to it.
> The conversion from markdown left the img tags in the correct format for a browser to locate the files.
> 
> After finding Trevor's function for correctly URL encoding the file name I was able to successfully load the files into the browser widget and display the images.
> The 200 image file loaded in less than a second which was good.
> 
> The final issue was the varying width of the images.
> I simply loaded an array keyed on the file names with a single value, image width.
> I didn't want any widths greater than 800 pixels so a simply if statement set all widths > 800 to 800
> Then a simple replace loop using the image size array "gimagescale"...
> repeat for each key ikey in gimagescale
> 
>    replace ikey&quote&" " with ikey&quote&" width = "&quote&gimagescale[ikey]&quote in nfile
> 
> end repeat
> 
> and the img tags were in a format I wanted.
> 
> Loading into the browser widget was fast and the images all fitted in the browser's width.
> 
> Setting the htmltext of a field was my first choice. But the html of the converted markdown docs was more than LC's htmltext function could handle.
> And to be honest, the browser's rendering looked better.
> Had the html been simpler, using a field would have been just as fast.
> 
> Anyway, my issue is resolved.
> 
> Thank you both again for your help.
> 
> James
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode