Ok, I agree that renderer-resolution is a good name if we need a per-renderer setting for the resolution. But applying Adrian's patch #43041 would leave the codebase in a strange situation where you have to configure the AFP renderer through the renderer setting and the TIFF/PNG renderers through target-resolution. And that just begs for confusion.
I guess I still have a problem where to draw the line between target-resolution and renderer-resolution, for example when looking at the PDF renderer. Jeremias Maerki On 02.08.2007 15:28:23 Chris Bowditch wrote: > Vincent Hennebert wrote: > > > Hi Chris, > > > > Hmmm, I’m perhaps making a confusion here. I thought target-resolution > > did also apply to the whole images generated by the renderer; i.e., for > > the TIFF renderer, the resolution of the image representing the whole > > document, and not only images inside it. Isn’t that the case? Then, why > > wouldn’t target-resolution also apply to images in PDF output? > > Good point. I overlooked the Tiff and PNG Renderers in my reply. Target > aka default resolution would apply to images in PDF as well as the > resolution of the generated Tiff, PNG etc. > > > > > Perhaps I should ask the question on fop-user, I’m sure I will find > > there nice developers who will enlighten me... > > > > > >>"output" and "target" have similar semantics in > >>the English language and the distinction between them will not be clear > >>enough for the users. Maybe the general purpose one (which currently > >>only controls batik) should be "default-resolution" and it could also > >>apply to images for renderers which dont have an explicit > >>"renderer-resolution" > > > > > > renderer-resolution sounds fine to me. > > Great. I think it is a lot clearer than "output-resolution" > > Chris >
