thank you, that was it! -- Regards, Tomek Kaczanowski
On Mar 6, 1:56 am, Lex Trotman <[email protected]> wrote: > On 6 March 2012 09:08, Tomek Kaczanowski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > it seems that width is more important than scaledwidth, for example, > > in such case: > > image::img/picture.png["Whatever", scaledwidth="50%", width="350", > > align="center"] > > when generating PDF output (with a2x) the scaledwidth will be ignored. > > Hi Tomek, > > The docbook image size model is fairly comples and asciidoc doesn't > support all options. What you need to understand is that it is based > on two rectangles, the viewport (which is the space on the page) and > the content which can be separately specified. The asciidoc > width/height attributes correspond to the content width/height and can > be specified in a whole lot of units, defaulting to pixels (whatever > that is for a PDF?) and here % is percent of the original image size. > For full details seehttp://docbook.org/tdg/en/html/imagedata.html > > Content size can also be specified as a scale of the original image > size by the scale=xx where xx is a percent. > > Asciidoc does not provide an independent way of setting viewport size > so the toolchains are free to choose, but seem to choose the viewport > to be equal to the content. > > Asciidoc does however allow specification of viewport scaling using > scaledwidth. Setting scaledwidth specifies the viewport width and > also specifies that the content should be scaled to fit. Here a % is > a percent of the size available. > > But you have specified both fixed content size and scaling and then > fixed should win, not scaled. If scaling is winning, the PDF > toolchain has a bug. > > XHTML only allows specifying an image by pixels and % of available > space, set by asciidoc width and height. The scaledwidth attribute is > ignored. > > I havn't tried it but the closest match between these two systems > would seem to be if HTML were specified by width in % and docbook > specified as scaledwidth in % without a content width. > > To do this you can make docbook output ignore width by adding a custom > docbook45.conf. Copy the [image-blockmacro] section from the system > docbook45.conf to the custom one and delete the part {width? > contentwidth="{width}"}{height? contentdepth="{height}"} > > Hopefully then you can specify docbook and html separately. > > Cheers > Lex > > > > > > > > > > > This means that if I want to have a decent output for both PDF and > > HTML I need to do something fancy. > > > My current solution is to use sed to remove all "contentwidth" from > > docbook output for PDF version like this: > > sed -i 's/contentwidth="[0-9][0-9][0-9]" //g' my_book.xml > > before xstlproc and fop are invoked. > > > Is there better way to do it? How do other people deal with this? > > Using ifdef? > > > -- > > Regards, > > Tomek Kaczanowski > >http://practicalunittesting.com > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "asciidoc" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "asciidoc" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/asciidoc?hl=en.
