Herb W. Swan wrote:
Bruce Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed Jun 4 19:41:49 2003:
I downloaded the latest l2h (latex2html-2002-2-1, dated May 23,2003)
[...]
I just downloaded the same version of LaTeX2HTML that you did, and I got the
same result.
The `same' is in same as me or same as before?
Ie. it works now, I hope!
However, latex2html-2002-2-1 has a much more serious defect not
present in latex2html-2002.
Actually, with rotate=-90, I'm more surprised that latex got it right, than
that latex2html got it wrong! ... but seriously ... :>
In any case, graphicx is just passing it on to latex as traditional.
I installed an old copy of 2002 (downloaded on Mar 21, 2002) that I
had handy. Both it and the current 2002-2-1 failed.
A clue!! 2002's dvips command was:
/usr/bin/dvips -S1 -i -E -o/tmp/l2h14262/image ./images.dvi
but 2002-02-1's was:
/usr/bin/dvips -S1 -i -Ppdf -E -E -o/tmp/l2h15824/image ./images.dvi
Ross is getting more generous with the -E's!
Maybe your config went from 0 to 1, instead of 1 to 2?
The -E option tries to produce encapsulated postscript, and crops the
pages smaller, so the rest of the bitmap processing pipeline goes much faster
(especially for the typically small formula).
However, I suspect dvips is miscalculating the bounding box:
%%BoundingBox: 133 719 675 1117
Without the -E it gives
%%BoundingBox: 0 0 612 792
Since your figure is about 540x300 it looks like the actual graphs
got missed when -E was used.
If there's a "It should just work" solution, it's beyond me, maybe Ross
has some ideas. Two workaround solutions are:
1) comment out any $DVIPSOPT = " -E" in l2hconf.pm
(I assume it will run slower on more typical cases).
2) Make your durn'ed figures rightsideup in the first place!!
What're we? Australians!?!?! Sheesh!
_______________________________________________
latex2html mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://tug.org/mailman/listinfo/latex2html
