Re: @image for pdf and html
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 7:01 PM > From: "Gavin Smith" > To: daniela-s...@gmx.it > Cc: "help-texinfo gnu" > Subject: Re: @image for pdf and html > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:11:33PM +0100, daniela-s...@gmx.it wrote: > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 10:55 PM > > > From: "Gavin Smith" > > > To: "Christopher Dimech" > > > Cc: "help-texinfo gnu" > > > Subject: Re: @image for pdf and html > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:11:09PM +0100, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > > > It has been figured that we cannot use the same file for both > > > > pdf/dvi output and html output. Because if the file has too many > > > > pixels, the image will be too big for html. We could end up with > > > > many calls to image with different files using @iftex and @ifhtml. > > > > > > You could equally say it's too big for pdf, if the pdf is going to > > > put online. It's the same image either way. > > > > It is html that is limiting resolution, thus capability must be discussed > > when > > compared to pdf output. Html provides serious limitations, unlike in pdf > > where you can select the width and height. In geology based manual, the > > resolution > > is the most important aspect of any image. > > > > > I don't see anything wrong with using conditionals for different > > > output formats to specify different image files, if that is what > > > is desired. > > > > There is nothing wrong. However geology based manuals inherently > > have many images, and defining for both is an extremely cumbersome > > proposition. Besides the fact that images in html have limited use > > because of the number of pixel limitation. Otherwise you cannot > > see the text. > > What might be a good feature in texi2any for your usage is to display > the image in HTML with a low-resolution version (both for page > layout, and to save bandwidth), but have a link to higher resolution > versions. This is what happens on Wikipedia. This would be quite a > bit of work to implement, though. That's what we are currently doing, use low resolution image. Yes, that's what's needed, a link to the higher resolution image. In geophysical mapping, people ultimately want to scrutinise the high resolution image. The low resolution image is still useful though, mainly for display purposes when people are reading the document.
Re: @image for pdf and html
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:11:33PM +0100, daniela-s...@gmx.it wrote: > > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 10:55 PM > > From: "Gavin Smith" > > To: "Christopher Dimech" > > Cc: "help-texinfo gnu" > > Subject: Re: @image for pdf and html > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:11:09PM +0100, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > > It has been figured that we cannot use the same file for both > > > pdf/dvi output and html output. Because if the file has too many > > > pixels, the image will be too big for html. We could end up with > > > many calls to image with different files using @iftex and @ifhtml. > > > > You could equally say it's too big for pdf, if the pdf is going to > > put online. It's the same image either way. > > It is html that is limiting resolution, thus capability must be discussed when > compared to pdf output. Html provides serious limitations, unlike in pdf > where you can select the width and height. In geology based manual, the > resolution > is the most important aspect of any image. > > > I don't see anything wrong with using conditionals for different > > output formats to specify different image files, if that is what > > is desired. > > There is nothing wrong. However geology based manuals inherently > have many images, and defining for both is an extremely cumbersome > proposition. Besides the fact that images in html have limited use > because of the number of pixel limitation. Otherwise you cannot > see the text. What might be a good feature in texi2any for your usage is to display the image in HTML with a low-resolution version (both for page layout, and to save bandwidth), but have a link to higher resolution versions. This is what happens on Wikipedia. This would be quite a bit of work to implement, though.
Re: @image for pdf and html
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Christopher Dimech wrote: > I am not sure, but can one pass file names to @image with @value? I remember > that I could not do it when output is pdf or dvi. Have nat checked what > happens > for html output. I don't know if @value works with @image. You would have to check. I imagine there could be problems with TeX. > Have also looked at @url, and found that it does not break at special > characters > as specified in the manual. This is not a useful bug report. What is the input, what output format is being output: HTML, pdf...? > Additionally, @float does not function. This is not a useful bug report.
Re: @image for pdf and html
I am not sure, but can one pass file names to @image with @value? I remember that I could not do it when output is pdf or dvi. Have nat checked what happens for html output. Have also looked at @url, and found that it does not break at special characters as specified in the manual. Could users have something similar for break file names, as it is frequent that file names get very long, as happens with url's. Additionally, @float does not function. Regards Christopher - Christopher Dimech General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation) - Geophysical Simulation - Geological Subsurface Mapping - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation - Natural Resource Exploration and Production - Free Software Advocacy > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 11:17 PM > From: daniela-s...@gmx.it > To: "Gavin Smith" > Cc: "help-texinfo gnu" > Subject: Re: @image for pdf and html > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 10:55 PM > > From: "Gavin Smith" > > To: "Christopher Dimech" > > Cc: "help-texinfo gnu" > > Subject: Re: @image for pdf and html > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:11:09PM +0100, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > > It has been figured that we cannot use the same file for both > > > pdf/dvi output and html output. Because if the file has too many > > > pixels, the image will be too big for html. We could end up with > > > many calls to image with different files using @iftex and @ifhtml. > > > > You could equally say it's too big for pdf, if the pdf is going to > > put online. It's the same image either way. > > It is html that is limiting resolution, thus capability must be discussed when > compared to pdf output. Html provides serious limitations, unlike in pdf > where you can select the width and height. In geology based manual, the > resolution > is the most important aspect of any image. > > > I don't see anything wrong with using conditionals for different > > output formats to specify different image files, if that is what > > is desired. > > There is nothing wrong. However geology based manuals inherently > have many images, and defining for both is an extremely cumbersome > proposition. Besides the fact that images in html have limited use > because of the number of pixel limitation. Otherwise you cannot > see the text. > > >
@image for pdf and html
What is your opinion on using the same image file name for both: (1) pdf, dvi; and (2) html. @image(file,w,h,alttext,.png) Meaning that html will search for the filename, but with a token being appended to it.
Re: @image for pdf and html
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 10:55 PM > From: "Gavin Smith" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Cc: "help-texinfo gnu" > Subject: Re: @image for pdf and html > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:11:09PM +0100, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > It has been figured that we cannot use the same file for both > > pdf/dvi output and html output. Because if the file has too many > > pixels, the image will be too big for html. We could end up with > > many calls to image with different files using @iftex and @ifhtml. > > You could equally say it's too big for pdf, if the pdf is going to > put online. It's the same image either way. It is html that is limiting resolution, thus capability must be discussed when compared to pdf output. Html provides serious limitations, unlike in pdf where you can select the width and height. In geology based manual, the resolution is the most important aspect of any image. > I don't see anything wrong with using conditionals for different > output formats to specify different image files, if that is what > is desired. There is nothing wrong. However geology based manuals inherently have many images, and defining for both is an extremely cumbersome proposition. Besides the fact that images in html have limited use because of the number of pixel limitation. Otherwise you cannot see the text.
Re: @image for pdf and html
> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 10:55 PM > From: "Gavin Smith" > To: "Christopher Dimech" > Cc: "help-texinfo gnu" > Subject: Re: @image for pdf and html > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:11:09PM +0100, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > It has been figured that we cannot use the same file for both > > pdf/dvi output and html output. Because if the file has too many > > pixels, the image will be too big for html. We could end up with > > many calls to image with different files using @iftex and @ifhtml. > > You could equally say it's too big for pdf, if the pdf is going to > put online. It's the same image either way. It is html that is limiting resolution, thus capability must be discussed when compared to pdf output. Html provides serious limitations, unlike in pdf where you can select the width and height. In geology based manual, the resolution is the most important aspect of any image. > I don't see anything wrong with using conditionals for different > output formats to specify different image files, if that is what > is desired. There is nothing wrong. However geology based manuals inherently have many images, and defining for both is an extremely cumbersome proposition. Besides the fact that images in html have limited use because of the number of pixel limitation. Otherwise you cannot see the text.
Re: @image for pdf and html
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:11:09PM +0100, Christopher Dimech wrote: > It has been figured that we cannot use the same file for both > pdf/dvi output and html output. Because if the file has too many > pixels, the image will be too big for html. We could end up with > many calls to image with different files using @iftex and @ifhtml. You could equally say it's too big for pdf, if the pdf is going to put online. It's the same image either way. I don't see anything wrong with using conditionals for different output formats to specify different image files, if that is what is desired.
Re: @image for pdf and html
It has been figured that we cannot use the same file for both pdf/dvi output and html output. Because if the file has too many pixels, the image will be too big for html. We could end up with many calls to image with different files using @iftex and @ifhtml. > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 10:05 PM > From: "Gavin Smith" > To: daniela-s...@gmx.it > Cc: "help-texinfo gnu" > Subject: Re: @image for pdf and html > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:32:15PM +0100, daniela-s...@gmx.it wrote: > > What is your opinion on using the same image file name for > > both: (1) pdf, dvi; and (2) html. > > > > @image(file,w,h,alttext,.png) > > > > Meaning that html will search for the filename, but with a token being > > appended to it. > > Sorry, I don't understand the question. > > - Christopher Dimech General Administrator - Naiad Informatics - GNU Project (Geocomputation) - Geophysical Simulation - Geological Subsurface Mapping - Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation - Natural Resource Exploration and Production - Free Software Advocacy
Re: @image for pdf and html
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:32:15PM +0100, daniela-s...@gmx.it wrote: > What is your opinion on using the same image file name for > both: (1) pdf, dvi; and (2) html. > > @image(file,w,h,alttext,.png) > > Meaning that html will search for the filename, but with a token being > appended to it. Sorry, I don't understand the question.
