.image files do not appear in browser

Having trouble installing <oXygen/>? Got a bug to report? Post it all here.
dennish83377
Posts: 1

.image files do not appear in browser

Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:01 pm

Hello All,
I am new to this forum and new to oXygen as well. I generated classic web help using 17.1 and moved the contents to a web server for testing. Everything looks great when I view it locally AND when I view it on the web server using the file path (e.g., file://server/directory/index.html#filename.html).

However, when I change the path to the corresponding href (e.g, http://server.com/directory/index.html#filename.html), the images do not appear.
Note that all of the images have a .image suffix.

As a test, I modified the html and added a .jpg. The .jpg is in the same directory as the .image files. When I view the topic using the href, only the .jpg appears.

I'm sure I'm missing something simple. Can someone please advise?
thank you,
-dennis
Radu
Posts: 5226

Re: .image files do not appear in browser

Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:39 am

Hi Dennis,

You could try a simple experiment. Create on the HTTP server a folder containing an small HTML document and an image with the .image extension. The HTML document would have a paragraph in which an <img> element would point to the image.
If you open the HTML document from the server in a web browser can you see the image?
If not, then somehow probably the web server somehow either avoids serving this extension to the web client or maybe it does not serve it with an image content type. So depending on the web server type you may need to find out how to configure it to overcome this limitation.

Regards,
Radu
Radu Coravu
<oXygen/> XML Editor
http://www.oxygenxml.com
adrian
Posts: 2337

Re: .image files do not appear in browser

Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:20 am

Hi,

What HTTP web server are you using?
".image" is a non-standard file extension for images and most likely the web server doesn't know what content type (MIME type) should assign to files with this extension when delivering them to the web browser. This can usually be addressed in the web server configuration, in the content (MIME) type settings.

Is there a good reason why all the images have the same generic ".image" file extension (instead of the usual, specific file extensions)?
This just seems to needlessly complicate things for the web server deployment.

Note that there is no generic image content type. Each type of image, JPG, GIF, PNG has a different content type ("image/jpeg", "image/gif", "image/png"). So, if you have various types of image files all with the same ".image" file extension, you might have some trouble making this work for all of them (all types) at the same time. e.g. You can assign the content type "image/jpeg" for files with ".image" extension and JPEG images will work, but I'm not sure what will happen when a PNG or GIF image file with the ".image" extension is served with the "image/jpeg" content type.

Regards,
Adrian
Adrian Buza
<oXygen/> XML Editor, Schema Editor and XSLT Editor/Debugger
http://www.oxygenxml.com

Return to “Common Problems”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests