Thread: [Ziproxy-users] Shrinking images?
Brought to you by:
dmcabrita
Menu
▾
▴
ziproxy-users
|
From: Michael O. <zu...@fr...> - 2004-01-16 16:45:48
|
Hello,
Another comment related to PDAs and mobile phones...
It could be useful if the proxy could also shrink images for these
devices with small displays. In addition to compression, this would
further reduce image file sizes.
For example, on my 240x320 display, when I browse the Google site, the
Google logo is as wide as my screen, while I'd like to keep the same
proportion as on my notebook, e.g. 1/3 of the display width.
I've had a look at the HTTP header specifications, and found no standard
way for a client to tell the server (the proxy in our case) about its
screen size. I'm just thinking of transferring this through a comment
in the User-Agent header, which wouldn't be too ugly.
Of course, this wouldn't be trivial to implement in the proxy, as it
would have to take into account the HTML width and height settings of
images, as well as their actual sizes...
Any comments or suggestions?
Cheers,
Michael.
--
Michael Opdenacker
http://opdenacker.org/
|
|
From: James H. <fre...@co...> - 2004-01-16 23:08:04
|
On Friday 16 January 2004 11:45 am, Michael Opdenacker wrote: > I've had a look at the HTTP header specifications, and found no standard > way for a client to tell the server (the proxy in our case) about its > screen size. =A0I'm just thinking of transferring this through a comment > in the User-Agent header, which wouldn't be too ugly. You can use javascript to determine a browsers screen resolution and provid= e=20 content accordingly. Of course this depends on your browser supporting=20 javascript.=20 The only way I see any proxy being able to negotiate this is by the website= =20 user changing the client name that the browser reports. Not all browsers=20 allow for this. =2D-=20 James Hicks Read "The Law", a classic blueprint for a just society,=20 at http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html . |
|
From: Juraj V. <va...@na...> - 2004-01-17 02:28:43
|
> I've had a look at the HTTP header specifications, and found no standard > way for a client to tell the server (the proxy in our case) about its > screen size. I'm just thinking of transferring this through a comment > in the User-Agent header, which wouldn't be too ugly. Yes, most near there is the Accept: header. But IMHO this is an thing that could be solved with CSS, but hardly one webmaster bothers it. > Of course, this wouldn't be trivial to implement in the proxy, as it > would have to take into account the HTML width and height settings of > images, as well as their actual sizes... This would require choosing more general-purpose image library, as I'm tired from coding image transformations in C. Maybe we can return to libgd (original mwp_proxy used it) if it does support GIFs now. HTML modification is already there, but it is quite brittle, too. I'm thinking about to move some parts of ziproxy away from C, say into Python (as near as ... summer holidays?). Then it may be much easier to use another backend(s) for image manipulation. Stay tuned. Juraj |
|
From: wspigel <ws...@99...> - 2004-01-17 02:54:13
|
What about using ImageMagick? It is free, has many packages for various distros and supports all kinds of image formats. Will ----- Original Message ----- From: "Juraj Variny" <va...@na...> To: <zip...@li...> Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 3:20 PM Subject: [Ziproxy-users] Re: Shrinking images? > > I've had a look at the HTTP header specifications, and found no standard > > way for a client to tell the server (the proxy in our case) about its > > screen size. I'm just thinking of transferring this through a comment > > in the User-Agent header, which wouldn't be too ugly. > > Yes, most near there is the Accept: header. > But IMHO this is an thing that could be solved with CSS, but hardly one > webmaster bothers it. > > > Of course, this wouldn't be trivial to implement in the proxy, as it > > would have to take into account the HTML width and height settings of > > images, as well as their actual sizes... > > This would require choosing more general-purpose image library, as I'm tired > from coding image transformations in C. Maybe we can return to libgd > (original mwp_proxy used it) if it does support GIFs now. HTML modification > is already there, but it is quite brittle, too. > > I'm thinking about to move some parts of ziproxy away from C, say into Python > (as near as ... summer holidays?). Then it may be much easier to use another > backend(s) for image manipulation. Stay tuned. > > Juraj > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 > Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration > See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. > http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn > _______________________________________________ > Ziproxy-users mailing list > Zip...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ziproxy-users > > |
|
From: Michael O. <zu...@fr...> - 2004-01-17 08:06:38
|
>What about using ImageMagick? It is free, has many packages for various
>distros and supports all kinds of image formats.
>
>
It's true, ImageMagick sounds like the most natural choice for doing
this. Plus, it's got APIs for C, C++, Perl, Java, PHP, Python and Ruby...
Cheers,
Michael.
--
Michael Opdenacker
http://opdenacker.org/
|
|
From: Juraj V. <va...@na...> - 2004-01-18 22:13:01
|
On Saturday 17 January 2004 09:06, Michael Opdenacker wrote: > >What about using ImageMagick? It is free, has many packages for various > >distros and supports all kinds of image formats. > > It's true, ImageMagick sounds like the most natural choice for doing > this. Plus, it's got APIs for C, C++, Perl, Java, PHP, Python and Ruby... I whole-heartedly agree. But the point is, that until now I hadn't any access to an server where I would be able to install it. I couldn't demand it from administrators, nor it would fit in my quota. Now I haven't enough free time to. Even adding and testing of one quite simple option (AllowLookChange) took me a month.... This led me to idea to get away from C, to lower the barrier for implementing more such features. Juraj |
|
From: Will <ws...@99...> - 2004-01-20 23:59:06
|
Just curious, what version of libungif do the developers use as a basis for testing? Will |
|
From: Cheuk-san E. W. <wa...@ai...> - 2004-01-21 00:54:02
|
On Tue, Jan 20, 2004 at 06:58:57PM -0500, Will wrote: > Just curious, what version of libungif do the developers use as a basis for > testing? > I use this [wang@husband ~]$ rpm -q libungif libungif-4.1.0-15 Cheuksan Wang |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X