forrest-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Johannes Schaefer <>
Subject Re: screenshot scaling
Date Fri, 17 Sep 2004 07:27:06 GMT

Here it is: FOR-296


Dave Brondsema wrote:
> 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" <>
>> To: <>
>> 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

User Interface Design GmbH * Teinacher Str. 38 * D-71634 Ludwigsburg
Fon +49 (0)7141 377 000 * Fax  +49 (0)7141 377 00-99
Geschäftsstelle: User Interface Design GmbH * Lehrer-Götz-Weg 11 * 
D-81825 München

Buch "User Interface Tuning" von Joachim Machate & Michael Burmester

Attraktivität von interaktiven Produkten messen mit

View raw message