Thanks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Seper:
...would the page lode quicker if I link to the graphic or embed it?

---

Well,...I'm assuming that you're speaking of linking to somebody else's server to use a graphic from their site on your site...and if that's what you're planning....don't do that! That's just bad manners....always download the graphic to your server if you're going to use it on your site (and, you might even want to ASK first!).

There's a couple of reasons for this....
1) It's just bad manners (I know, I already said that, but it bears repeating).
2) If they change the graphic or just take it off of their server, you might get some unpleasant results.
3) If their server's down for some reason, that graphic won't show up on your page.

If I've made the wrong assumption regarding your intent, then I've given you a wrong answer.....my apologies.

------------------
cecil@awesomehouse.com

------------------
Merry Christmas to all!

Gene White
WebTeky Full Service Web Development
http://www.webteky.com/
http://www.webteky.net

Do you all know anything about how OLE works or not? Obviously I was talking about graphics on my own site! And obviously you don't have to link to a graphic that's in the same directory as the web page you're linking to...that boys and girls is called <i>embedding</i>.

Thing is, most of us who have been doing this a while tend to put graphics in a directory by themselves and if you do that, you need to link to them, (although even this may not be neccessary on non-linux servers...dunno.)

My question is, which downloads faster: A graphic embedded from the same directory as the webpage or a linked graphic <b>from the same directory</b>. Sure, both methods will work just fine but I really don't have a clue as to how OLE works to make this happen. If I simply embedd the file by it's name then does the server have to look through every graphic image in that directory to find the right one? If I provide an actual <i>link</> to the graphic in that same directory, will that help the server to find it faster and thus...make it load quicker. I suspect it won't make much of a difference in speed and I really doubt I'll start putting graphics in the same directory like the village idiot anytime soon; I'm just curious as to how OLE works.

Sorry for the confusion.

Sandy

I don't know if either is faster. I have some <a href></a> and some <img></img> and don't notice any difference. They are all in separate folders, some of which are 3 and 4 deep.

Is this what you are asking?

OLE stands for Object Linking and Embedding....(and, you know it MUST be "obvious" if it's in this thread..... ).

Bill.....

I didn't know there WAS a difference in how a graphic is "read" into a web page. My understanding is that EVERY image has a "source" that it is read from - either the same directory as the page being called or in an "images" directory, or even from another web site's server (don't get me started..... ). That implies to me that every graphic is "linked" by the <img source=....> tag. My understanding of embedding is that a graphic doesn't need that "reference" to an external source.

So, Bill, please tell me what you're referring to when you imply that there's a difference between linking to a graphic and embedding a graphic in a web page....I'm sorry, but it's not "obvious" to me!

Cecil

------------------
cecil@awesomehouse.com

Sandy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Seper:
Um...well, gee that's nice guys but could you try to actually give me an answer that has something to do with the question I asked?

---

quote:

---

Do you all know anything about how OLE works or not? Obviously I was talking about graphics on my own site! And obviously you don't have to link to a graphic that's in the same directory as the web page you're linking to...that boys and girls is called <i>embedding</i>.

---

Nope - any "object" with an <a HREF=""><a> is "linked". It can be absolute or relative but it's still "linked".

Java Applets, Sound files, etc. are "embedding" using the <object> tag.

quote:

---

Thing is, most of us who have been doing this a while tend to put graphics in a directory by themselves and if you do that, you need to link to them, (although even this may not be neccessary on non-linux servers...dunno.)

---

quote:

---

My question is, which downloads faster: A graphic embedded from the same directory as the webpage or a linked graphic <b>from the same directory</b>. Sure, both methods will work just fine but I really don't have a clue as to how OLE works to make this happen. If I simply embedd the file by it's name then does the server have to look through every graphic image in that directory to find the right one? If I provide an actual <i>link</> to the graphic in that same directory, will that help the server to find it faster and thus...make it load quicker. I suspect it won't make much of a difference in speed and I really doubt I'll start putting graphics in the same directory like the village idiot anytime soon; I'm just curious as to how OLE works.

---

There "should" be no difference is download time on a properly configured web server whatever directory the images are stored in.

------------------
Gil Harvey

Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

Internet Consulting - Web Development

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Seper:
would the page lode quicker if I link to the graphic or embed it?

---

If I may interject...
Basically, there is no such thing as OLE in this regard. All references to images in a web page are essentially links, the physical location of the image file (what directory, what server, what planet, etc.) has nary to do with it. You are simply calling the image from somewhere.

There are fancy schmancy Java scripts and ASP thingys that might be considered exceptions, but that's another story.

So, in HTML no E, all O's are L'd. Got it?

<grin>
Sorry

Oh yes it does. And when I said directory I was referring to a directory on the same server but not my directory or that is, not in my root folder but someone else’s. On a company intranet it’s not unusual for various employees to use graphics from one big root folder by itself with it’s own directories such as, maybe one for jpegs and others for gifs and pngs, (and if I may interpolate, png format is terrific and I wish all web browsers were using it. I’d kill off my gifs in a heartbeat if they did. In fact, the quality is good enough to use for photographs as well. I can really see this becoming the internet standard someday replacing gifs and jpgs both.) Anyhow, subdirectories are often made from these to no end and I’m telling you that on any Linux server I’ve ever used you had better link to that graphic or it may show up or it may not. As far as your comment about it not mattering what server are you trying to say that all I need is the graphic name form any folder anywhere on the net and it’ll show up on my page! Lord I hope not, there must be an awful lot of graphics out there in internetland with the same name. No telling what might show up including porno shots. Surely you must have meant something else by that.

Thanks everybody for your comments and answers. Out of curiosity I’m going to run a few tests to see if there is a load time difference between the 2 linking styles. I’ll let you know the results. I’m sure it must be minimal if any at all.

quote:

---

Nope - any "object" with an <a HREF=""><a> is "linked". It can be absolute or relative but it's still "linked".

---

You don’t need to use <a Href> when embedding graphics in the same directory as your root folder. All you need is to put in the graphic’s name. It could be my_pic.jpg for instance and that’s all you need to embed it. Perhaps we’re miscommunicating.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Seper:
Gil,

You don’t need to use <a Href> when embedding graphics in the same directory as your root folder. All you need is to put in the graphic’s name. It could be my_pic.jpg for instance and that’s all you need to embed it. Perhaps we’re miscommunicating.[/B]

---

Yep, we are;

Of course you don't have to use the <a herf>, I didn't mean to imply you did. What you describe is a "relative link", but a link all the same. I've got sites on three NT & two Unix/Linux servers linking to graphic files on each other, the path varies, but they all linked to the HTML document they appear on.

------------------
Gil Harvey

Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

Internet Consulting - Web Development

[This message has been edited by Gil (edited 01-03-2001).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Seper:
As far as your comment about it not mattering what server. Are you trying to say that all I need is the graphic name from any folder anywhere on the net and it'll show up on my page!

---

Yep,....
If you have the path to that graphic correctly listed, NO MATTER where it is on the net, no matter whose server it sits on, it'll show up on your page.

That's what caused my response to your original post. When you do that, you're using other peoples (or company's) bandwidth to support your site. And as I said, that's just bad manners. I've had personal experience with this - people that I don't know were linking directly to my server for graphics to use on their site. Every time that somebody accessed their site, MY server was accessed as well JUST for the graphic to be displayed on their pages.

So, YES, all you need is the graphic's name AND the correct path to that graphic to use it, no matter where it is.

Cecil

------------------
cecil@awesomehouse.com

I have never heard of anyone using ole to embed a bg image in a web page.

If your bg image is well made, the point is moot because it will load fast wherever it is.

How's that for an answer?

Using the terms correctly, what you're asking about is invalid HTML. According to W3 standards, use of the IMG tag performs the function of embedding the image on the page:

<IMG src="http://www.somecompany.com/vacation/family.jpg"
alt="A photo of my family at the lake.">

The use of the EMBED tag to insert a graphic would be incorrect.

Your only other compliant option is the OBJECT tag:

<OBJECT data="TheEarth.gif" type="image/gif">

I believe the other terms you were looking for were inline and external. Snippet 1 is an external example and Snippet 2 in an inline example.

Inline is marginally faster, but not practical for large sites.

--Bri

------------------
"Before you bite the hand that feeds, locate the hand that slaps."
-------------------
Work, work, work: http://www.appercept.co.uk
Out of office hours: http://www.darlingbri.co.uk

[This message has been edited by DarlingBri (edited 01-05-2001).]

~~~“Yep,....
If you have the path to that graphic correctly listed”~~~

Well, of course…but who’s going to list the entire path name? If you’re going to go to all that trouble then you might as well use (a href.) That wasn’t the topic of conversation here. We’re talking about the simple path name, e.g. : my_pic.gif, my_pic.jpg etc., nothing more.

Thomas,

~~~”I have never heard of anyone using ole to embed a bg image in a web page.”~~~

Like I said, I know little or nothing about OLE. I assumed that this is how the server rendered an image where only the simple file name of the graphic was used in the html file for the page to be rendered. Are you absolutely sure it isn’t?

DarlingBri,

~~~“The use of the EMBED tag to insert a graphic would be incorrect.”~~~

Who said anything about an embed tag?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLEASE, is there anybody here who actually knows anything about OLE? DO servers use it for anything concerning graphics? And if not, ARE YOU SURE? Please, no more guessing games….

I did perform a small test. I did something I’ve never done before because I haven’t a clue as to how it exactly works and I don’t like flying blind. I actually used FrontPage 2000 to generate a background from one of its stock theme’s, in this case; I used the “Expedition” theme. I even used it for horizontal line breaks. I have another page that’s an exact duplicate that I’ve had up for a long time but while I used the same background and hr lines in it, I simply put those graphics in the same folder and used (a href) to link to them. This is my normal way of doing things because you simply cannot go wrong by using the exact path for the image you’re using no matter what server your on. Links work no matter what like this and I’m not a chance taker.

Anyhow, by using the FrontPage theme generator to put in the background and horizontal lines I noticed one thing immediately: The file size is about ¼ larger now! The original page was only 27139, and the new theme enabled page is 39889. Having said that however, the new page seems to load in about the same amount of time…go figure.

I don’t exactly understand the code involved in the way FrontPage embeds the theme information (and no, I’m not using FrontPage extensions), does anybody? This stuff looks foreign to me but I’m no html expert anyway. This is an extremely simple page by the way, no css or ssi or asp, or anything else other than a couple of small java applets.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Seper:

Like I said, I know little or nothing about OLE. I assumed that this is how the server rendered an image where only the simple file name of the graphic was used in the html file for the page to be rendered. Are you absolutely sure it isn’t?

---

quote:

---

PLEASE, is there anybody here who actually knows anything about OLE? DO servers use it for anything concerning graphics? And if not, ARE YOU SURE? Please, no more guessing games….

---

anything about OLE? Yeah, some. I know it's not for embedding {reference your comment to Bri, that's what the "E" is} graphics into HTML documents, that's not a guess, by the way.

------------------
Gil Harvey

Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

Internet Consulting - Web Development

"In a program which actually accepts an OLE object you essentially get the object embedded into the form (or whatever). When a user clicks on the object, the actual program identified in windows that should be launched for that type of document is opened and the object is then available to be edited."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank You! That makes perfect sense. I first found out about OLE when using graphics in Word and I know they always referred to those as "embedded" graphics.

It puzzles me why when I saved that little html page I made with the FrontPage Theme, that it asked me if I wanted to "embed" the graphics. If it's not truly embedding then what exactly is it? I really don't understand half this code that FP automatically makes for you when you use their own themes and this is especially true when you use those extensions. I don't have a clue what goes on behind the scenes with that stuff.

Anyhow, I'm one of the few people you'll ever meet who uses both FP and DreamWeaver. I started out with FP so I'm used to it and I also like the way pages are laid out in the workspace almost like a Word document. What I generally do is get the basic look of the page down in FP and then transfer it to DW and choose the auto html cleanup function, which seems to remove gobs of unnecessary tags that FP puts in. I just put in that page I made with the FP theme and it brought its file size down to 37,281 from 39,889—not a significant amount but over 70 redundant tags! I stay away from all the extension stuff because I think I can use java scripts, SSI’s and ASP (which I’m just learning so I can hook into data basis) for a lot of those functions. Those are easier to insert with DW. I don’t know why more people don’t combine the 2 editors, pages made in FP tend to look pretty close to the way they will in the browser window (unlike DW) and DW is great for all the includes and cleaning up code. It’s an unbeatable combo in my opinion.

Thanks guys.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Seper:

Anyhow, I'm one of the few people you'll ever meet who uses both FP and DreamWeaver.

---

Not unusual at all. I use both, Gil does, Phil does, Andy Does, Vince does, Nancy and Shirley are starting to...

Marr

------------------
Marrianne Williams
OutFront News Editor
Stu Reilly Design

BTW - finally got my DWUltraDev4 today - Awesum!!!!!!

------------------
Gil Harvey

Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

Internet Consulting - Web Development

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill Seper:
Maybe I can still turn people on to my famous pickeloaf on frosted raisen-bread sandwhiches....

---

Ah.... I'll pass

------------------
Gil Harvey

If it's true that we are here to help others, then what exactly are
the others here for?

Internet Consulting - Web Development

I have an easy answer for you, but you will have to run the test yourself.

I think we can all agree that no matter how you insert or call the graphic, and place it on the web page that the load time for the graphic will be the same. A 12k file takes the same amount of time to grab no matter how you grab it. So here is what you do.

Embed the background into your site. Save the html file and look to see how many k's your html file is.

Next, create the same page, but instead of embedding, use your olesmole thing a mbob way of grabbing the page. Save the html file, and then look to see hom many k's this html file is.

The smallest html page wins. This is the answer to your question. If the html pages are the same in size which I am betting the will be, I would suggest trying to find other ways to speed up your site.

To clean up code that has gotten messy in FP, I have used Homesite with great results.