forrest-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Brondsema <d...@brondsema.net>
Subject Re: screenshot scaling
Date Thu, 16 Sep 2004 23:22:26 GMT

I agree that per-image flexibility is necessary.  But what if you wanted 
to have the same image resized in different places with different sizes? 
  I'm in favor of my earlier proposal of just specifing the height and 
width in the <img> tag.  Forrest, of course, would do the resizing, not 
the client.  This approach also brings the sizing close (from a code & 
file perspective) to the image reference, making it clearer.

This issue isn't a very high priority right now as most of us a busy 
with other things and the time we do have for Forrest is working on 
critical problems before we release 0.6.  Patches are certainly welcome 
:-)  At the least, we should add this as a feature request in the issue 
tracker (short title, summary links to this thread) so it isn't 
forgotten.  Since this is a new feature, we should start a new thread on 
dev@f.a.o to discuss actually implementing it.

Charles Palmer wrote:
> Team
> 
> I'm not sure that a single default size would necessarily be suitable for
> all applications. In my application I am trying to put technical manuals
> on-line as well as published as PDFs. My starting point is OpenOffice
> Writer, which allows me to scale the images to suit my taste and then create
> the PDF version I require (for paper versions). When the images transfer to
> Forrest I probably want them to occupy "about half a screen" in width - say
> 640 pixels wide - with an option to click on them to see them in full size.
> 
> I'm also keen to use the site: link rewriting scheme extended to
> <src="site:mypic"> images as well as <href="site:mylink"> links. If that
> were to happen then each image would have an entry in site.xml, and then
> would it be possible to add an attribute that defined either the desired
> (maximum) height, or width, or both (either in pixels, or as a %) (OK, maybe
> with a default width defined in skinconf.xml). Perfect flexibility, surely.
> I know I am repeating myself here, but I haven't heard anyone say why this
> can't or shouldn't be done.
> 
> Charles Palmer
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Clay Leeds" <cleeds@medata.com>
> To: <user@forrest.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 5:55 PM
> Subject: Re: screenshot scaling
> 
> 
> 
>>On Sep 13, 2004, at 12:00 AM, Johannes Schaefer wrote:
>>
>>>Hi!
>>>
>>>specifying just width XOR height scales
>>>the images proportionally.
>>>
>>>specifying 100% scales the image to the
>>>width (percentage) of the available space,
>>>like it does with tables.
>>>
>>>that's what I think is the HTML behaviour.
>>>
>>>js
>>
>>To echo Che Che, scaling of images would be really nice, so that 300dpi
>>source images can be used with full resolution for PDFs, but 72dpi for
>>HTML output. How do we determine an appropriate 'default' size? I'd
>>guess it's something along the lines of no more than 350 pixels wide
>>and/or tall. Anything larger would get scaled to fit within that 'box',
>>but anything smaller would retain its full size. It would also be nice
>>if scaled images could be auto-magically linked to a popup to their
>>full-size counterparts...
>>
>>Web Maestro Clay
>>
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Dave Brondsema : dave@brondsema.net
http://www.splike.com : programming
http://csx.calvin.edu : student org
http://www.brondsema.net : personal

Mime
View raw message