I'm trying to upload my resume to a company's website and I'm getting a C:\fakepath\myfilename,
Does this means that my file can't be uploaded to the website? or is it just for security reasons?
(I tried uploading with Microsoft Edge and Chrome)
When a file is chosen using an <input type="file">, the real path to the source file is not shown in the input's value attribute for obvious security reasons. Instead, the filename is shown, with C:\fakepath\ appended to the beginning of it. There are some historical reasons for this quirk, but it is supported across all modern browsers, and in fact is defined in the spec.
So, the browser shows the fake path for security reasons and it will not cause any issue with the file upload functionality. The file upload will work fine.
References:
Refer to the second point of the Notes section
FileUpload in Chrome giving some fake path value
FakePath issue in Chrome browser
Related
I'm teaching a Year7 class via Zoom on writing HTML, and I have one student on an iPad (the rest are on desktops/laptops), and they're not able to get their webpage to open in Safari (I'm using Chrome on Windows, which of course is simply a matter of double-clicking on the file). I'm trying to see what she sees, but I think Zoom is possibly not showing me the pop-up dialogues. She is using Notes to write the page (which looked to be the closest iOS equivalent to Notepad).
I Googled and sent her a few blogs, but still not working. I said she needs to click on Share and look for something like "copy path to file" or "copy link", and then paste that into the Safari address bar. She said when she did that Safari was showing the source code, not the rendered page. When she just taps the file it opens in Notes, not Safari. That made me suspect her file was actually index.html.txt (she tells me she has extensions switched on), but when I sent her my own file, which is definitely only index.html, she says the same thing is happenning.
Is anyone able to give me some definite step-by-step instructions (this is for a Year 7 student) on how to open their local HTML page in Safari?
thanks,
Donald.
Safari iPad no longer supports access to local or iCloud files. A number of iPadOS apps will however allow a user to view, edit, and test html code in files stored in local iPad, iCloud, or third party (e.g. Google or Dropbox) storage folders. One needs only to search in the App Store for “html editor” to see the list. Some of the apps have features that rival or exceed those found in tools on desktop (laptop) systems.
I had the same issue today on ios15.
There is a free app called Koder available on the App Store which will let you edit and view the HTML file. I’m no expert but the editor looks pretty fully featured at first glance.
Sorry to say but an iPad is obviously not the best place for simple HTML editing. At least not with the default apps available on iOS.
Given an existing HTML File one can use Files app to navigate to it and open it with double click. This will open the file in a very simple viewer wich is at least able to render the HTML. As a developer i bet its using WKWebView which is basically Safari's HTML View.
Turns out Microsoft Edge, unlike Safari, can still open local html files. Discovered in this answer. To wit:
Install Microsoft Edge from the App Store
Open Files (or whatever file browsing app you like).
Open the file, then tap the Share button to send to another app.
Scroll across to "More...", choose Edge, and voila!
So ive been through several posts and searches, but im still at a loss for how to get Chrome to display images when the src attribute uses a file thats located on another server. Im getting the image and setting its path via a custom file browser that Im hooking into CKeditor with. Works fine in IE, just not chrome.
This is for an intranet, and some of the image content is stored off of the web server. Although IE displays fine, it seems that Chrome does not like to display images with the src attribute is of a format like
file://server_name/share_name/folder_1/file_1.png
Strange, even though Chrome will pass the users identity, so its not a security issue. Also, if I take the path and directly paste it in the url window of Chrome, it displays fine. Just not when a img src value.
If this was just a page on its own, I could use a custom handler and write to the response stream, but this needs to work with a content editor.
Id like to include Chrome since many of our users have it and use it daily, but our default is IE.
Are there any file url schemes, or Chrome settings that will override these issues?
The issue may not be the image or URL format. I'd wager that it's browser security restrictions.
To ensure that maliciously designed web pages can't access a user's local files, accessing any data from the user's filesystem (especially network drives) is generally disallowed in most modern browsers. (At least in their default configuration. There may be policies or runtime parameters to override these for testing purposes such as Chrome's --disable-web-security parameter, but these are purposefully difficult to turn off.)
If you want the content to display across all browsers, you'll likely need to deliver it via HTTP(s) like the rest of the page content.
In previous version of chrome, on a webpage with the following:
<script>
document.write('<plaintext>');
</script>
<img src="http://example.com/image.jpg">
the image would not be downloaded. At some point a chrome update changed this behavior. Now when I look at the network tab, I see the image is downloaded. (fiddle here: https://jsfiddle.net/doojunqx/)
I have a script that is on a page, I would like to use this script to stop the browser from downloading (using up network bandwidth) for images and other assets that are unwanted and below my script tag.
Mobify does something similar here:
http://cdn.mobify.com/mobifyjs/examples/capturing-grumpycat/index.html
As they say on the page "Open your web inspector and note the original imgs did not load." However, when I open chrome developer tools and look at the network tab, I see the original images ARE now loading. I'm not sure what version of chrome changed this, but I think it is recent, within the last month or two.
Is there any way to force chrome back to the old behavior? Or any other way to stop these unwanted assets from loading?
Thanks,
Great question, and you're correct that it is a recent change in Chromium that affected the plaintext tag behaviour. In versions up to and including version 42.*, the HTML document parser would not spawn an asynchronous parsing thread until an external resource was found in the original HTML document. Once such a resource was found, an asynchronous thread would be spawned that would aggressively download all resources references within the HTML.
The recent change simplified the parsing behaviour by moving all document parsing to the asynchronous thread which now kicks off automatically. Whereas before, using the plaintext tag would ensure that no resources would be loaded if it was inserted before the first external resource, the plaintext tag is now racy as resources will download up to the moment the plaintext tag is executed in the main HTML document. As there is a time delay for the script to execute, an unknown number of resources will be retrieved.
There is as of yet no solution to this new behaviour, nor is there a way to disable the preload scanner as you would like. You will need to rely on workarounds such as polyfills to control your resource downloads. This new behaviour is only present in all versions of Chrome >= 43.* and has not been implemented in Safari, Firefox, or other browsers.
The download attribute on an anchor element should set the name of the downloaded resource to the value of the download attribute. In the current version of chrome, the download attribute doesn't, however, change the name. Is this not anymore supported? Anything changed?
Here is a post explaining the functioning of the download attrib: http://updates.html5rocks.com/2011/08/Downloading-resources-in-HTML5-a-download
If it worked as expected, the name of the downloaded resource would be MyGoogleLogo. It is, however, the last element (file) of the href.
It seems that the download attribute works only when the resource is retrieved via HTTP from the same server as the linking document. So if you have
<a href=foo.txt download=something.txt>xxx</a>
on a web page, it works, but if it is in a local file, it does not; neither does it work if a web page refers to a resource on another server. By “works” I mean setting the filename; even when it does not “work” in this sense on Chrome (or Firefox), it causes a pure download instead of navigation to the resource, i.e. the resource is downloaded as a file but not opened in the browser.
According to MDN info, “In Firefox 20 this attribute is only honored for links to resources with the same-origin.” This seems to apply to current Firefox, too, in the stronger sense that the download attribute is completely ignored for cross-origin requests.
I have used <img> tag in html for displaying images. The image gets displayed in Internet Explorer 10, but it is not visible in mozilla, chrome. Could someone please tell me the reason why?
<img src="file:///d:/maruthi.jpg" style="width: 150px; height: 140px;" alt="Photo">
Chrome stops access to local file:// links from with in http:// page for security reasons by default.
file:// is not allowed in Chrome and Firefox for security reasons by default, but this answer shows you how to change those settings. Really, you should set up a lightweight local server.
The <img> tag is standard across all browsers (except text-based browsers like Lyx). That should work, however given that it is a local path it may be that you are testing it in a different environment that can't access that path?
Review this wikipedia page on the file URI scheme and it will also highlight that some browser will limit access to local files for security reasons.
The original title to OP's question is NOT misleading - it is perfectly valid. However, they did not say whether they were using Windows or Linux. Windows and Windows programs (like DOS from which they originated) are completely indiscriminate with regard to the use of upper or lower case in filenames.
Two possibilities to consider:
Linux is fully case sensitive, including its use of filenames. Yourfile.JPG is NOT recognized as being the same as Yourfile.jpg! I recently migrated from Windows to Linux and encountered exactly the same problem with Firefox. It displayed images in sites on the internet, but not in perfectly valid local HTML and CSS markup. Later, I noticed that the Windows image-editing program I'd been using had saved all the images with uppercase .JPG or .PNG extensions. A few that I'd previously renamed manually had lowercase extensions - these DID display normally! Linux 'properties' for those files identified them correctly as JPEG files, while those with uppercase extensions were simply identified as IMAGE. Also, my markup references all images with lowercase extensions (professional usage). When non-displaying image file extensions were changed to lowercase, they all displayed correctly.
If Steve is still using Windows, it's possible that Internet Explorer is displaying local images for the same reason as above. Firefox, though, uses a different engine (Mozilla) and, being open-source, maybe more strict with regards to case sensitivity in file names. However, I'm not in a position to check this out. Maybe someone else can test.
i have used in jsp as this : and working in firefox and chrome
<a href="Welcome.jsp"><img src="home.jpg">