View Issue Details
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0004452||mantisbt||other||public||2004-09-01 06:51||2009-06-15 00:53|
|Summary||0004452: All images should have sizes defined|
All displayed images should have correct sizes defined. Otherwise, when images are switched off in browser, page looks corrupted.
This affects "My View", "View Issues", "Summary" ... almost all pages.
|Tags||No tags attached.|
This should also speed up page rendering in some browsers since the browser will not have to wait for images to load to determine table sizes based on the images - in other browsers it will keep that seizure loading style to a minimum since they will not dynamically re-render the page every time an image is loaded.
I take it this is mainly for the images we ship, but also for the attached images?
I don't think this makes sense for attached images, as you'll have to rely on GD functions in PHP to determine size and also this will increase server load to do this each time.
edited on: 09-01-04 23:10
Well, we can also do it when adding the files. Oh well, let's do the other images first.
Issue 1: Icons and various built-in Mantis images.
Issue 2: Uploaded images by users.
where meta will be a string based on file_type.. if file_type is image/*, meta will contain a string 340X240, or some well known format that indicates height and width. This information will be populated and calculated once when a file is uploaded to the server. For upgrades there would be an admin utility to process all images already in the db when adding the new column.
edited on: 10-27-04 10:34
I would like to see Option 2 for Issue 1: Allows for customisation of the images properly.
I don't think these icons really need customization, so it's better to keep the system simple and not overload configuration files with each image name and dimentions.
Now that I think about it - I agree with astax. The icons are standard, only the main images would need to be changed though customisation.
Unassigned after having been assigned for multiple years without progress.
Just curious, why so simple change that would take 5 or 10 minutes to do takes years to actually be done? (I don't expect any answer)
Patches are welcome. It all comes to priority and a dev or community member deciding to spend their time on a specific issue.
|2004-09-01 06:51||astax||New Issue|
|2004-09-01 07:48||DGtlRift||Note Added: 0007353|
|2004-09-01 17:36||jlatour||Note Added: 0007376|
|2004-09-01 17:36||jlatour||Status||new => acknowledged|
|2004-09-01 17:36||jlatour||Relationship added||child of 0004297|
|2004-09-01 23:09||astax||Note Added: 0007389|
|2004-09-01 23:10||astax||Note Edited: 0007389|
|2004-09-02 01:59||jlatour||Note Added: 0007392|
|2004-09-13 16:58||DGtlRift||Assigned To||=> DGtlRift|
|2004-10-05 12:00||DGtlRift||Status||acknowledged => assigned|
|2004-10-05 18:27||vboctor||Relationship deleted||parent of 0004297|
|2004-10-27 10:33||DGtlRift||Note Added: 0008185|
|2004-10-27 10:34||DGtlRift||Note Edited: 0008185|
|2004-10-27 20:03||Matt_wc||Note Added: 0008189|
|2004-10-28 08:55||DGtlRift||Status||assigned => feedback|
|2004-10-28 09:38||astax||Note Added: 0008198|
|2004-11-02 10:40||DGtlRift||Relationship added||child of 0004181|
|2004-11-03 00:35||Matt_wc||Note Added: 0008230|
|2009-06-13 04:11||siebrand||Note Added: 0022132|
|2009-06-13 04:11||siebrand||Assigned To||DGtlRift =>|
|2009-06-13 04:11||siebrand||Status||feedback => new|
|2009-06-14 22:14||astax||Note Added: 0022156|
|2009-06-15 00:53||vboctor||Note Added: 0022157|
|2009-06-15 00:53||vboctor||Status||new => acknowledged|