I know that this issue is out of Clarifications. But better to not remove part of image link to get higher resolution of it. This domain uses url requests to get required image resolution. For example (http://www.brooklynvegan.com/files/2017/11/pochette_DC_03-1.png?w=190&h=190&zc=1&s=0&a=t&q=89). This link will return 190x190px image. Your template removes part of this link(after file extension). So, better to limit image resolution in this part of link rather than remove it. This part of link can garantee, that IV will not try to load image with size(or resolution) higher that supported. My template generate IV for this article.
- Changing attributes of the link can lead to resizing images over their original sizes. For example, if there was an image that was originally 128x128, your code would resize it 10 times, which would look really ugly. Risking just a single article not loading at all but having a proper images should be proper behavior. Especially when it's a -really- rare case, like here. I checked hundreds of articles so far and haven't met that issue until now.
Also: "My template generate IV for this article."
It generates image, not the article. There are other issues with the article (dead youtube video, unsupported embed).
- Type of issue
- IV page is missing essential content
- Apr 5, 2019 at 6:17 PM