![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pyesetz
On the original Word Wide Web (Berners-Lee, 1989), text and images were stored in separate files. This made sense in a time of slow downloads, poor image compression, and bits of text that were edited more often than the accompanying pictures. By 1998 it had become apparent that a means for directly embedding images within HTML files would be a good idea, so RFC2397 was promulgated. RAM was expensive then, so the embedded images were limited to 768 bytes (that's 1,024 base₆₄ characters) as a side effect of the memory limit imposed by RFC1866. the elePHPant ![]()
Even today, anyone using Internet Explorer 7 or earlier still can't see the elePHPant shown at right (it's an embedded image). Meanwhile, all other browsers have moved on and permit embedded images of decent sizes for modern machines. Every so often there are forum posts like this one where someone rediscovers embedded images and wonders why everyone else isn't using them. Short answer: Microsoft hegemony!
But there's a new day dawning! Microsoft *might* raise their limit from 1kb up to 32kb for Internet Explorer 8, if they feel like it. (I saw it on Wikipedia so it must be true!) The upgrade may be going out as soon as next month. Be patient, little embedded images—someday soon your oppression will be lifted! Then you can begin the long hard slog towards equal rights. "Separate but equal" is not equal! "Supported by browsers but not by HTML page-editors" is not supported at all! LiveJournal accepts them, but dailyKos doesn't; down with discrimination against the embeddeds! We need a Magna Carta! We need a new Constitutional Amendment!
What we really need is a new RFC to codify the larger limit on embedded image sizes, but I'm not holding my breath. Microsoft is still taking baby steps here, not really supporting usefully-large images. Since they used their OOXML monstrosity primarily to break the cachet of the ISO by proving that its standards committees are bribable, I doubt that Microsofties will be welcome again at ISO meetings any time soon.
Hat tip: I think![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rabitguy wrote on this topic at some time in the distant past.
But there's a new day dawning! Microsoft *might* raise their limit from 1kb up to 32kb for Internet Explorer 8, if they feel like it. (I saw it on Wikipedia so it must be true!) The upgrade may be going out as soon as next month. Be patient, little embedded images—someday soon your oppression will be lifted! Then you can begin the long hard slog towards equal rights. "Separate but equal" is not equal! "Supported by browsers but not by HTML page-editors" is not supported at all! LiveJournal accepts them, but dailyKos doesn't; down with discrimination against the embeddeds! We need a Magna Carta! We need a new Constitutional Amendment!
What we really need is a new RFC to codify the larger limit on embedded image sizes, but I'm not holding my breath. Microsoft is still taking baby steps here, not really supporting usefully-large images. Since they used their OOXML monstrosity primarily to break the cachet of the ISO by proving that its standards committees are bribable, I doubt that Microsofties will be welcome again at ISO meetings any time soon.
Hat tip: I think
rabitguy wrote on this topic at some time in the distant past.
