― David Allen (David Allen), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:36 (twenty-one years ago)
― mark grout (mark grout), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:38 (twenty-one years ago)
http://www.mediacollege.com/internet/html/image-tag.html
― Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:40 (twenty-one years ago)
― jellybean (jellybean), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:42 (twenty-one years ago)
you'll lose quality when you resize using image tags or the browser btw as the routines that do it are fast rather than good. whether this bothers you depends on what you're using it for i guess.
― koogs (koogs), Thursday, 13 January 2005 16:49 (twenty-one years ago)
― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:17 (twenty-one years ago)
― LSD ARISTOCAT (ex machina), Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:19 (twenty-one years ago)
― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:22 (twenty-one years ago)
― teeny (teeny), Thursday, 13 January 2005 17:26 (twenty-one years ago)
― JaXoN (JasonD), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:06 (twenty-one years ago)
― Stevem On X (blueski), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:16 (twenty-one years ago)
― David Allen (David Allen), Thursday, 13 January 2005 18:33 (twenty-one years ago)
but if the person is uploading super highres images and needs them to be super small, it's just a waste of time. what if the original image is 1mg and the shrunk down images were like 150k, that'd be a considerable amount of time, especially if there are many, many images.
― JaXoN (JasonD), Thursday, 13 January 2005 19:04 (twenty-one years ago)
― David Allen (David Allen), Thursday, 13 January 2005 19:33 (twenty-one years ago)
― JaXoN (JasonD), Thursday, 13 January 2005 19:44 (twenty-one years ago)