|
Tube train animation
A rather good animated GIF of a busy section of tube line (5.8MB) that I
saw illustrating an article about commuting: http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...23/7/anigif_en hanced-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif -- Roland Perry |
Tube train animation
Roland Perry wrote on 28 May 2014 07:52:11 ...
A rather good animated GIF of a busy section of tube line (5.8MB) that I saw illustrating an article about commuting: http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...23/7/anigif_en hanced-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif Interesting variation in the results from different browsers. Internet Explorer (IE9) runs through the animation in 5 seconds. Chrome does it in about 1½ seconds. Firefox won't show it at all; it gives a code 403 error (access denied). Are GIF animations supposed to run at a particular speed, or does each browser make its own decision? -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
Tube train animation
Paul Corfield wrote:
On Wed, 28 May 2014 07:52:11 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: A rather good animated GIF of a busy section of tube line (5.8MB) that I saw illustrating an article about commuting: http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...23/7/anigif_en hanced-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif Looks like Wembley Park to me. It's clearly a short clip as there are no Chiltern trains whizzing past on the right. Oh and one train is on a trip to or from the depot using the flyunder. Yes, I agree, it must be Wembley Park. Although it's a bit speeded up, it's still only a few seconds worth of real time, and Chiltern trains aren't very frequent on the Amersham branch. |
Tube train animation
In message , at 10:24:12 on Wed, 28 May
2014, Richard J. remarked: Firefox won't show it at all; Mine does. it gives a code 403 error (access denied). Are GIF animations supposed to run at a particular speed, or does each browser make its own decision? There's a delay between frames programmed in, but different browsers interpret it differently[1] although there seems to be general agreement that setting the delay to less than 0.02sec (which is 1/50sec) will cause all browsers to ignore it, which isn't that surprising because that's the refresh rate of many monitors, and changing the image faster than that will simply lose frames. For this particular animation, it's entirely possible that they *want* the "speeded up" effect. [1] eg by rounding up anything below 0.06 sec to .10 sec -- Roland Perry |
Tube train animation
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote: A rather good animated GIF of a busy section of tube line (5.8MB) that I saw illustrating an article about commuting: http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...anigif_enhance d-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif Wembley Park looking south, with the first train heading for Neasden via the dive-under? -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Tube train animation
In article
, (Recliner) wrote: Paul Corfield wrote: On Wed, 28 May 2014 07:52:11 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: A rather good animated GIF of a busy section of tube line (5.8MB) that I saw illustrating an article about commuting: http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...anigif_enhance d-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif Looks like Wembley Park to me. It's clearly a short clip as there are no Chiltern trains whizzing past on the right. Oh and one train is on a trip to or from the depot using the flyunder. Yes, I agree, it must be Wembley Park. Although it's a bit speeded up, it's still only a few seconds worth of real time, and Chiltern trains aren't very frequent on the Amersham branch. Just long enough for up and down trains on Met & Jubilee plus the Met to Neasden Depot. Works fine for me in Firefox. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Tube train animation
On Wed, 28 May 2014 10:24:12 +0100, "Richard J."
wrote: Roland Perry wrote on 28 May 2014 07:52:11 ... A rather good animated GIF of a busy section of tube line (5.8MB) that I saw illustrating an article about commuting: http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...23/7/anigif_en hanced-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif Interesting variation in the results from different browsers. Internet Explorer (IE9) runs through the animation in 5 seconds. Chrome does it in about 1½ seconds. Firefox won't show it at all; it gives a code 403 error (access denied). That's because the line with the URL was folded and you ended up with the wrong link. If you make sure the full URL is used, with no spaces, it works fine in Firefox. It takes about 1.5 secs. |
Tube train animation
In message , at 12:03:35 on
Wed, 28 May 2014, Recliner remarked: http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...23/7/anigif_en hanced-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif Interesting variation in the results from different browsers. Internet Explorer (IE9) runs through the animation in 5 seconds. Chrome does it in about 1½ seconds. Firefox won't show it at all; it gives a code 403 error (access denied). That's because the line with the URL was folded and you ended up with the wrong link. The url wasn't folded, and it that's the explanation how did it get displayed in IE and Chrome? -- Roland Perry |
Tube train animation
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:03:35 on Wed, 28 May 2014, Recliner remarked: http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...23/7/anigif_en hanced-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif Interesting variation in the results from different browsers. Internet Explorer (IE9) runs through the animation in 5 seconds. Chrome does it in about 1½ seconds. Firefox won't show it at all; it gives a code 403 error (access denied). That's because the line with the URL was folded and you ended up with the wrong link. The url wasn't folded, and it that's the explanation how did it get displayed in IE and Chrome? Look carefully, and I bet you spot a space in it. Maybe IE and Chrome auto join the strings? |
Tube train animation
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 12:03:35 on Wed, 28 May 2014, Recliner remarked: http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...23/7/anigif_en hanced-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif Interesting variation in the results from different browsers. Internet Explorer (IE9) runs through the animation in 5 seconds. Chrome does it in about 1½ seconds. Firefox won't show it at all; it gives a code 403 error (access denied). That's because the line with the URL was folded and you ended up with the wrong link. The url wasn't folded, and it that's the explanation how did it get displayed in IE and Chrome? Afraid it was, Roland. Character 0x0317: 000002c0 75 74 20 63 6f 6d 6d 75 74 69 6e 67 3a 0a 0a 3c |ut commuting:..| 000002d0 68 74 74 70 3a 2f 2f 73 33 2d 65 63 2e 62 75 7a |http://s3-ec.buz| 000002e0 7a 66 65 64 2e 63 6f 6d 2f 73 74 61 74 69 63 2f |zfed.com/static/| 000002f0 32 30 31 34 2d 30 35 2f 65 6e 68 61 6e 63 65 64 |2014-05/enhanced| 00000300 2f 77 65 62 64 72 30 33 2f 32 33 2f 37 2f 61 6e |/webdr03/23/7/an| 00000310 69 67 69 66 5f 65 6e 0a 68 61 6e 63 65 64 2d 62 |igif_en.hanced-b| 00000320 75 7a 7a 2d 32 39 38 37 30 2d 31 34 30 30 38 34 |uzz-29870-140084| 00000330 33 33 36 36 2d 38 2e 67 69 66 3e 0a 2d 2d 20 0a |3366-8.gif.-- .| 00000340 52 6f 6c 61 6e 64 20 50 65 72 72 79 0a |Roland Perry.| Browser treatment of a split URL seems to vary, even (in at least one browser I have) between different methods of invoking the URL. Nick -- "The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life" -- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996 |
Tube train animation
Nick Leverton wrote on 28 May 2014 14:03:32 ...
In article , Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 12:03:35 on Wed, 28 May 2014, Recliner remarked: http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2014...23/7/anigif_en hanced-buzz-29870-1400843366-8.gif Interesting variation in the results from different browsers. Internet Explorer (IE9) runs through the animation in 5 seconds. Chrome does it in about 1½ seconds. Firefox won't show it at all; it gives a code 403 error (access denied). That's because the line with the URL was folded and you ended up with the wrong link. The url wasn't folded, and it that's the explanation how did it get displayed in IE and Chrome? Afraid it was, Roland. Character 0x0317: 000002c0 75 74 20 63 6f 6d 6d 75 74 69 6e 67 3a 0a 0a 3c |ut commuting:..| 000002d0 68 74 74 70 3a 2f 2f 73 33 2d 65 63 2e 62 75 7a |http://s3-ec.buz| 000002e0 7a 66 65 64 2e 63 6f 6d 2f 73 74 61 74 69 63 2f |zfed.com/static/| 000002f0 32 30 31 34 2d 30 35 2f 65 6e 68 61 6e 63 65 64 |2014-05/enhanced| 00000300 2f 77 65 62 64 72 30 33 2f 32 33 2f 37 2f 61 6e |/webdr03/23/7/an| 00000310 69 67 69 66 5f 65 6e 0a 68 61 6e 63 65 64 2d 62 |igif_en.hanced-b| 00000320 75 7a 7a 2d 32 39 38 37 30 2d 31 34 30 30 38 34 |uzz-29870-140084| 00000330 33 33 36 36 2d 38 2e 67 69 66 3e 0a 2d 2d 20 0a |3366-8.gif.-- .| 00000340 52 6f 6c 61 6e 64 20 50 65 72 72 79 0a |Roland Perry.| Browser treatment of a split URL seems to vary, even (in at least one browser I have) between different methods of invoking the URL. The link was folded in Thunderbird, with only the first half formatted as a link. I had therefore selected and copied the whole link and pasted it into the Firefox address bar. I have been used to doing that when using IE and it always works, but I see that Firefox 29.0.1 (which has recently become my default browser) preserves the "line feed" as a space. I assume that those who had no problem with Firefox were using a newsreader that doesn't fold a long link. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
Tube train animation
In message
, at 07:11:00 on Wed, 28 May 2014, Recliner remarked: The url wasn't folded, and it that's the explanation how did it get displayed in IE and Chrome? Look carefully, and I bet you spot a space in it. White space is specifically allowed in urls; doubly so if enclosed in delimiters. Maybe IE and Chrome auto join the strings? No, *if* the url is going to be split, it'll be by the client from which you are cutting, not the browser into which you are pasting. -- Roland Perry |
Tube train animation
In message , at 13:03:32 on Wed, 28 May 2014,
Nick Leverton remarked: The url wasn't folded, and it that's the explanation how did it get displayed in IE and Chrome? Afraid it was, Roland. Character 0x0317: 000002c0 75 74 20 63 6f 6d 6d 75 74 69 6e 67 3a 0a 0a 3c |ut commuting:..| 000002d0 68 74 74 70 3a 2f 2f 73 33 2d 65 63 2e 62 75 7a |http://s3-ec.buz| 000002e0 7a 66 65 64 2e 63 6f 6d 2f 73 74 61 74 69 63 2f |zfed.com/static/| 000002f0 32 30 31 34 2d 30 35 2f 65 6e 68 61 6e 63 65 64 |2014-05/enhanced| 00000300 2f 77 65 62 64 72 30 33 2f 32 33 2f 37 2f 61 6e |/webdr03/23/7/an| 00000310 69 67 69 66 5f 65 6e 0a 68 61 6e 63 65 64 2d 62 |igif_en.hanced-b| 00000320 75 7a 7a 2d 32 39 38 37 30 2d 31 34 30 30 38 34 |uzz-29870-140084| 00000330 33 33 36 36 2d 38 2e 67 69 66 3e 0a 2d 2d 20 0a |3366-8.gif.-- .| 00000340 52 6f 6c 61 6e 64 20 50 65 72 72 79 0a |Roland Perry.| That's white space, which is allowed in urls; particularly if enclosed in delimiters. -- Roland Perry |
Tube train animation
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 07:11:00 on Wed, 28 May 2014, Recliner remarked: The url wasn't folded, and it that's the explanation how did it get displayed in IE and Chrome? Look carefully, and I bet you spot a space in it. White space is specifically allowed in urls; doubly so if enclosed in delimiters. News to me, and to my newsreader. |
Tube train animation
In message
, at 14:17:45 on Wed, 28 May 2014, Recliner remarked: White space is specifically allowed in urls; doubly so if enclosed in delimiters. News to me, and to my newsreader. True nevertheless. -- Roland Perry |
Tube train animation
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:17:45 on Wed, 28 May 2014, Recliner remarked: White space is specifically allowed in urls; doubly so if enclosed in delimiters. News to me, and to my newsreader. True nevertheless. Only if encoded as %20 or +. I don't think an actual space is allowed. |
Tube train animation
On Wed, 28 May 2014 19:26:00 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 13:03:32 on Wed, 28 May 2014, Nick Leverton remarked: The url wasn't folded, and it that's the explanation how did it get displayed in IE and Chrome? Afraid it was, Roland. Character 0x0317: 000002c0 75 74 20 63 6f 6d 6d 75 74 69 6e 67 3a 0a 0a 3c |ut commuting:..| 000002d0 68 74 74 70 3a 2f 2f 73 33 2d 65 63 2e 62 75 7a |http://s3-ec.buz| 000002e0 7a 66 65 64 2e 63 6f 6d 2f 73 74 61 74 69 63 2f |zfed.com/static/| 000002f0 32 30 31 34 2d 30 35 2f 65 6e 68 61 6e 63 65 64 |2014-05/enhanced| 00000300 2f 77 65 62 64 72 30 33 2f 32 33 2f 37 2f 61 6e |/webdr03/23/7/an| 00000310 69 67 69 66 5f 65 6e 0a 68 61 6e 63 65 64 2d 62 |igif_en.hanced-b| 00000320 75 7a 7a 2d 32 39 38 37 30 2d 31 34 30 30 38 34 |uzz-29870-140084| 00000330 33 33 36 36 2d 38 2e 67 69 66 3e 0a 2d 2d 20 0a |3366-8.gif.-- .| 00000340 52 6f 6c 61 6e 64 20 50 65 72 72 79 0a |Roland Perry.| That's white space, which is allowed in urls; particularly if enclosed in delimiters. If you look at RFC 3986 Appendix A [1], you will see that "space" is simply not mentioned anywhere in the grammar for defining a URL. Since it's not mentioned anywhere in the grammar, the only way to encode a space is with percent-encoding (%20). [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt -- jhk |
Tube train animation
In message
, at 15:56:26 on Wed, 28 May 2014, Recliner remarked: White space is specifically allowed in urls; doubly so if enclosed in delimiters. News to me, and to my newsreader. True nevertheless. Only if encoded as %20 or +. I don't think an actual space is allowed. rfc3986: In some cases, extra whitespace (spaces, line-breaks, tabs, etc.) may have to be added to break a long URI across lines. The whitespace should be ignored when the URI is extracted. ... Using angle brackets around each URI is especially recommended as a delimiting style for a reference that contains embedded whitespace. So whitespace is allowed in *text* representations, such as usenet postings. *After* the url has been extracted from the text, *then* the spaces should be encoded (before being passed to the browser). -- Roland Perry |
Tube train animation
In message , at 00:23:02 on
Thu, 29 May 2014, Jarle Hammen Knudsen remarked: If you look at RFC 3986 Appendix A [1], you will see that "space" is simply not mentioned anywhere in the grammar for defining a URL. Since it's not mentioned anywhere in the grammar, the only way to encode a space is with percent-encoding (%20). [1] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt See the comment I made to recliner. The confusion in your mind is between the textual representation of a url in a medium like usenet, and the format of the url after it's been extracted from the usenet posting. -- Roland Perry |
Tube train animation
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:56:26 on Wed, 28 May 2014, Recliner remarked: White space is specifically allowed in urls; doubly so if enclosed in delimiters. News to me, and to my newsreader. True nevertheless. Only if encoded as %20 or +. I don't think an actual space is allowed. rfc3986: In some cases, extra whitespace (spaces, line-breaks, tabs, etc.) may have to be added to break a long URI across lines. The whitespace should be ignored when the URI is extracted. ... Using angle brackets around each URI is especially recommended as a delimiting style for a reference that contains embedded whitespace. So whitespace is allowed in *text* representations, such as usenet postings. *After* the url has been extracted from the text, *then* the spaces should be encoded (before being passed to the browser). And the URL you (or Agent) presented to Firefox still had the embedded space, rather than a %20, hence the problem. In my case, I just deleted the unwanted space, and it worked. |
Tube train animation
In message
, at 03:10:49 on Thu, 29 May 2014, Recliner remarked: So whitespace is allowed in *text* representations, such as usenet postings. *After* the url has been extracted from the text, *then* the spaces should be encoded (before being passed to the browser). And the URL you (or Agent) presented to Firefox still had the embedded space, rather than a %20, hence the problem. In my case, I just deleted the unwanted space, and it worked. No, my client extracted the url perfectly well (not just from my original posting, but it would also do so from Colin's comment to my posting where he included the delimited url). I didn't have a problem. -- Roland Perry |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk