Broken Image Link

Can someone here look at the code at http://www.patents.com and tell me
why the image is not displaying? It is not my site, but I am curious
about the comment that something in IE is broken.

In article <41386D0C.7FA3 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net>, mcp6453 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net says...

Can someone here look at the code at http://www.patents.com and tell me
why the image is not displaying? It is not my site, but I am curious
about the comment that something in IE is broken.

this is a valid link ?

http://demo:demo (AT) west (DOT) pat...gi?resolution=
320x240&dummy=1094217750383

On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 13:08:22 GMT, mcp6453 <mcp6453 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote:

Can someone here look at the code at http://www.patents.com and tell me
why the image is not displaying?

Interesting, I'm somehow given a username and password. What's the use of
that?

Anyway, it's done in Hotmetal which is really awful IMO. I'm surprised it
works in any browser. It's not an HTML 4 document, it's something else.

But as the image is included with Javascript, you need a Javascript
newsgroup to solve the image issue.

Followups to comp.lang.javascript

It is not my site, but I am curious
about the comment that something in IE is broken.

I think it's a bunch of bull. This site is so incompetent, I wouldn't
trust them if they told me it was dark at night.

Dave wrote:

In article <41386D0C.7FA3 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net>, mcp6453 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net says...
Can someone here look at the code at http://www.patents.com and tell me
why the image is not displaying? It is not my site, but I am curious
about the comment that something in IE is broken.

this is a valid link ?


http://demo:demo (AT) west (DOT) pat...gi?resolution=

320x240&dummy=1094217750383


I just pasted it into IE and it opened an image for me.

"mcp6453" <mcp6453 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> wrote

Can someone here look at the code at http://www.patents.com and tell me
why the image is not displaying? It is not my site, but I am curious
about the comment that something in IE is broken.

They put their names on this????

mcp6453 skrev 2004-09-03 15:34:

Dave wrote:

In article <41386D0C.7FA3 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net>, mcp6453 (AT) earthlink (DOT) net says...
Can someone here look at the code at http://www.patents.com and tell me
why the image is not displaying? It is not my site, but I am curious
about the comment that something in IE is broken.

this is a valid link ?


http://demo:demo (AT) west (DOT) pat...gi?resolution=
320x240&dummy=1094217750383


I just pasted it into IE and it opened an image for me.

It's just an ordinary Axis webcam camera view, reloaded every 30 sec.
The link above can be shortened to
http://demo:demo (AT) west (DOT) pat...jpg/image.cgi?
since the rest don't affect the link.

Resolution=320x240 is the image size in pixels, but not really needed
there, because 320x240 is the default size for the camera to show the
images. The rest (&dummy=1094217750383) I don't really know what it's for.

Why is'nt it shown in IE? That's because there is no OBJECT ID code in
the Javascript, that I belive is needed to call the ActiveX in IE.
IE can't show this kind of webcams without ActiveX, and if you disable
that in IE you can't view the cameras even if the code is there. Other
browsers don't need the OBJECT ID, just a link to the camera outside of
the OBJECT ID coding.

I have a similar webcam on http://w1.978.telia.com/~u97802964/webcam.html
Look at the source, if you like to how it's done.

Followups to comp.lang.javascript

--
/Arne

Arne <arne (AT) luras (DOT) nu> wrote:

The link above can be shortened to
http://demo:demo (AT) west (DOT) pat...jpg/image.cgi?
since the rest don't affect the link.

Huh? Of course it affects - it's data to a CGI script.

The key issue here might be the fact that the URL is nonstandard (no
usernameassword part is allowed in http URLs by the specs) and the fact
that this year, IE dropped support to the construct, due to security
reasons. Some people might have an old version of IE that hasn't got this
patch installed, so maybe the link "works" for them.

Followups to comp.lang.javascript

No, you didn't set any f'ups. Now set to alt.html.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html

Jukka K. Korpela skrev 2004-09-03 18:20:

Arne <arne (AT) luras (DOT) nu> wrote:

The link above can be shortened to
http://demo:demo (AT) west (DOT) pat...jpg/image.cgi?
since the rest don't affect the link.

Huh? Of course it affects - it's data to a CGI script.

How then? It works just fine for me to get the image up with that
shorter link, and its not any different if I add the rest. That is in
Mozilla ofcause, sorry I forget to mention that. :-)

The key issue here might be the fact that the URL is nonstandard (no
usernameassword part is allowed in http URLs by the specs) and the fact
that this year, IE dropped support to the construct, due to security
reasons. Some people might have an old version of IE that hasn't got this
patch installed, so maybe the link "works" for them.

The password thingy is on http://west.patents.com/ if you have IE (pw is
"demo"). After that a different page (where the image is shown even for
IE) than with http://www.patents.com/

With Mozilla I get right on to the page, no need for password. Very
strange thing, but only a demo of some kind that I don't understad the
purpose of. :-)

Followups to comp.lang.javascript

No, you didn't set any f'ups. Now set to alt.html.

Sorry, it went wrong :-)

--
/Arne

"Jukka K. Korpela" wrote:

Arne <arne (AT) luras (DOT) nu> wrote:

The key issue here might be the fact that the URL is nonstandard (no
usernameassword part is allowed in http URLs by the specs) and the fact
that this year, IE dropped support to the construct, due to security
reasons.

According to <url: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1738.txt /> section 3.1:

<quote>
While the syntax for the rest of the URL may vary depending on the particular
scheme selected, URL schemes that involve the direct use of an IP-based
protocol to a specified host on the Internet use a common syntax for the
scheme-specific data:

//<user>:<password>@<host>:<port>/<url-path>

Some or all of the parts "<user>:<password>@", ":<password>", ":<port>", and
"/<url-path>" may be excluded.
</quote>

And according to <url: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2396.txt /> section 3.2.2:

<quote>
URL schemes that involve the direct use of an IP-based protocol to a
specified server on the Internet use a common syntax for the server component
of the URI's scheme-specific data:

<userinfo>@<host>:<port>
</quote>

and later:

<quote>
Some URL schemes use the format "userassword" in the userinfo field. This
practice is NOT RECOMMENDED, because the passing of authentication
information in clear text (such as URI) has proven to be a security risk in
almost every case where it has been used.
</quote>

So. While it is clearly not recommended to use http://userassword@host, it
appears that, contrary to what you stated, the construct is part of the
specification.

--
Grant Wagner <gwagner (AT) agricoreunited (DOT) com>
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq

Grant Wagner <gwagner (AT) agricoreunited (DOT) com> wrote:

According to <url: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1738.txt /> section 3.1:

Read clause 3.4, which defines the specific syntax of http URLs and
trumps any generic descriptions (as the text you quoted implies) and is,
in fact, still in force, unlike the generic syntax described in RFC 1738
(not that it would matter, since RFC 2396 also specifies
usernameassword as part of the generic syntax, _without_ implying that
it would be allowed in all URL types - but quoting the generic part of
RFC 1738 is a sure sign of not being quite up to date with RFC URLs).

Followups set again. Please explain why you override Followup-To if you
feel compelled to do so.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html