Re: Directory structure . . . more!

Wow. Two learning experiences in one day. I don't know if my mind (ego?)
can stand it. That _has_ to be almost as bad as someone finding themselves
in agreement with me twice in one week!

:-) !

I responded to this thread privately (not because I didn't want to share
but because it was loooong), and in that reply I mentioned small images
linking to larger images to keep load times low(er). The relevance spoke to
the total number of images warranting a separate directory to cut down on
time and confusion when you want to make changes six months down the road.

I mentioned my naming convention: foo.jpg and smfoo.jpg. Heck, I thought
this was brilliant.

Huuump.

Dan straightened me out on that!

I didn't get permission to share this, so forgive me Dan for stealing part
of your message but . .  . I think it's worth it.

" [. . . ]
>instead of the
>convention "foo.gif" for large images and "smfoo.gif" for the small ones,
>why not "foo.gif" (or foo-lg.gif) and "foo-sm.gif".  I've found it's very
>helpful for me to be able to find both the thumbnail and the full image in
>the exact same spot in the directory.  That way I don't have to scroll
>through a hundred or so images before finding the other one that I want.
[ . . . ]"

Man. It doesn't take much of *that* to humble the Fuzz :-)

HTH,
Fuzzy.
__________________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
sysop(at)mail.ruediger.leon.k12.fl.us
sysop(at)mail.woodville.leon.k12.fl.us
Member of the HTML Writers Guild and 
International Webmasters Association
------------------------------------------------------------------

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA