From gbnewby at pglaf.org Tue Jan 3 23:40:41 2006 From: gbnewby at pglaf.org (Greg Newby) Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 23:40:41 -0800 Subject: [gutvol-p] Size/image limit in Web browser? Message-ID: <20060104074041.GB19173@pglaf.org> Has anyone heard about the following: > Let me just address one issue. The reason I organized it the way I did -- > into chapters vice a single web page -- was because just before I got > started on it I ran across a comment by someone -- I think it was somewhere > on the Project Gutenberg site -- that said that some browsers (I think the > reference was actually about Windows IE) are limited to no more than > something like 90 graphic images on a "page". I think the comment said > there was also a MB size limit. So when I saw that I knew I had somewhere > in the neighborhood of 300+ images so I'd bust that limit. So although I > was aware of your format guidelines I thought it was going to take this > project straight into a application crash. So that's why I did what I did. > Do you know if this graphics limitation still exists (or if it ever did)? The message was in response to my request to join a multi-file HTML eBook with tons of images (300) into a single file. Thanks for any info or feedback you might be able to provide. -- Greg From joshua at hutchinson.net Wed Jan 4 05:46:23 2006 From: joshua at hutchinson.net (Joshua Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:46:23 -0500 Subject: Fw: Re: [gutvol-p] Size/image limit in Web browser? Message-ID: <20060104134623.BF6FDEE22A@ws6-1.us4.outblaze.com> Meant to send this to the list as a whole. Forgot to check the reply headers before hitting send. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joshua Hutchinson" > > I've never heard of a hard limit. I've seen IE slow to a claw if memory > becomes an issue and at least one some browsers, it won't display the text > properly until all the images have been downloaded. I know recent versions of > Firefox and IE will display hundreds of images in one document, because I've > done it... It loads more slowly, obviously, but it runs. > > Multi-part HTML files are more of a pain in the patoot (you can't search > through the whole document, if you want a copy, you have to keep track of > multiple files, etc). I don't like them and would prefer all one file. > > Josh > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Greg Newby" > To: gutvol-p at lists.pglaf.org > Subject: [gutvol-p] Size/image limit in Web browser? > Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 23:40:41 -0800 > > > > > Has anyone heard about the following: > > > > > Let me just address one issue. The reason I organized it the way I did -- > > > into chapters vice a single web page -- was because just before I got > > > started on it I ran across a comment by someone -- I think it was somewhere > > > on the Project Gutenberg site -- that said that some browsers (I think the > > > reference was actually about Windows IE) are limited to no more than > > > something like 90 graphic images on a "page". I think the comment said > > > there was also a MB size limit. So when I saw that I knew I had somewhere > > > in the neighborhood of 300+ images so I'd bust that limit. So although I > > > was aware of your format guidelines I thought it was going to take this > > > project straight into a application crash. So that's why I did what I did. > > > Do you know if this graphics limitation still exists (or if it ever did)? > > > > The message was in response to my request to join a multi-file > > HTML eBook with tons of images (300) into a single file. > > > > Thanks for any info or feedback you might be able to provide. > > -- Greg > > _______________________________________________ > > gutvol-p mailing list > > gutvol-p at lists.pglaf.org > > http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-p From jtinsley at pobox.com Wed Jan 4 02:26:13 2006 From: jtinsley at pobox.com (Jim Tinsley) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 05:26:13 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-p] Re: [pgww] Size/image limit in Web browser? In-Reply-To: <20060104074041.GB19173@pglaf.org> References: <20060104074041.GB19173@pglaf.org> Message-ID: <20060104102613.GA29544@panix.com> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 11:40:41PM -0800, Greg Newby wrote: >Has anyone heard about the following: > >> Let me just address one issue. The reason I organized it the way I did -- >> into chapters vice a single web page -- was because just before I got >> started on it I ran across a comment by someone -- I think it was somewhere >> on the Project Gutenberg site -- that said that some browsers (I think the >> reference was actually about Windows IE) are limited to no more than >> something like 90 graphic images on a "page". I think the comment said >> there was also a MB size limit. So when I saw that I knew I had somewhere >> in the neighborhood of 300+ images so I'd bust that limit. So although I >> was aware of your format guidelines I thought it was going to take this >> project straight into a application crash. So that's why I did what I did. >> Do you know if this graphics limitation still exists (or if it ever did)? > >The message was in response to my request to join a multi-file >HTML eBook with tons of images (300) into a single file. > >Thanks for any info or feedback you might be able to provide. > -- Greg I'm not aware of any specific limits. In the FAQ, I give more general advice: http://www.gutenberg.org/faq/H-6 H.6. Should I make my HTML edition all on one page, or split it into multiple linked pages? For a typical novel, one page or HTML file is appropriate, but when that single HTML file gets up around 2 megabytes in size, it may be worth considering a split because of the difficulty of loading it in some browsers. In some other cases, where the content requires different styles on different pages, or different pages need different character sets, or the page, with images, just gets too heavy, you may need to split the HTML even if the HTML itself isn't technically too big. but I've seen some horrible numbers of images in one HTML file, where things get creaky but don't actually break. Though I think I had to wait 15 minutes once for one page to load -- from my LOCAL disk! I suppose you could do some tests. jim From scott_bulkmail at productarchitect.com Wed Jan 4 07:58:02 2006 From: scott_bulkmail at productarchitect.com (Scott Lawton) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 10:58:02 -0500 Subject: [gutvol-p] Size/image limit in Web browser? In-Reply-To: <20060104134623.BF6FDEE22A@ws6-1.us4.outblaze.com> References: <20060104134623.BF6FDEE22A@ws6-1.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: > > I've never heard of a hard limit. I've seen IE slow to a claw if memory >> becomes an issue and at least one some browsers, it won't display the text > > properly until all the images have been downloaded. Older browser versions and/or older computers certainly have trouble with large HTML files and/or lots of images. But, if PG hasn't received too many complaints on this with existing large files, perhaps it's manageable for most people. > > Multi-part HTML files are more of a pain in the patoot (you can't search >> through the whole document, if you want a copy, you have to keep track of > > multiple files, etc). I don't like them and would prefer all one file. Ideally both would be available, but perhaps that's something to leave to others. -- Cheers, Scott S. Lawton http://Classicosm.com/ - classic books http://ProductArchitect.com/ - consulting From Bowerbird at aol.com Wed Jan 4 10:41:28 2006 From: Bowerbird at aol.com (Bowerbird at aol.com) Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 13:41:28 EST Subject: [gutvol-p] Re: [pgww] Size/image limit in Web browser? Message-ID: <1b9.22c58a9c.30ed70d8@aol.com> jim said: > I've seen some horrible numbers of images in one HTML file, > where things get creaky but don't actually break. i've seen things get creaky even in big files with no images, creaky to the point that usability is significantly compromised (e.g., a delay of over a minute after a simple resize of a window). > Though I think I had to wait 15 minutes once for one page to load > -- from my LOCAL disk! i think we all agree that's broken, not creaky. > I suppose you could do some tests. unless you're doing them on an old machine, which usually means an old browser as well, your tests will misrepresent that experience... i am quite sure most people on this listserve, with their high-powered machines, would be shocked to learn how many people out there are running old machinery, including _far_ too many kids in schools, the same schools that also cannot afford to stock their library, and thus who are an excellent target-market for a free-in-every-sense copy of the classics. > I suppose you could do some tests. i suppose you could _solicit_ input from users. > Older browser versions and/or older computers > certainly have trouble with large HTML files > and/or lots of images.? right. of course, the "solution" -- multiple files -- can be as bad as the problem of a large single file. thankfully, word-processors can handle text files of very large sizes without too many hassles at all, even ones running on those old, slow machines... > But, if PG hasn't received too many complaints > on this with existing large files, perhaps it's > manageable for most people. without a public and transparent feedback loop, it's extremely difficult to know what "most people" actually do and do not find "manageable", since victims on the poor side of the digital divide have long since resigned themselves to suffer in silence. it takes active and constant prodding and pleading to get 'em to tell you that they are having problems. so silence should _not_ be taken as an "all ok" sign. and, just as a reminder, michael's target is _not_ "most people", but rather includes _everyone_, even people using monitors with green-on-black, like michael himself... -bowerbird -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/html Size: 3261 bytes Desc: not available URL: