On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 05:04:38PM -0700, Karl Berry wrote: > and if it was possible why would it the role of makeinfo to > do that? > > It is useful to put the actual width/height of images in the HTML output > because then browsers can use that info for layout without having to > read the actual image. On files with lots of images, it can make a > noticeable difference in rendering.
Ok. > I do not know how to read the height and width from the actual > images, > > Indeed, we surely don't want to load an open-ended number of image > reading libraries. I had hoped we could just run the file command, but > that does not report dimensions for jpeg images. We could use Image::Size. http://search.cpan.org/~rjray/Image-Size-3.232/ It tries to load other modules dynamically only if it failed to find the image size itself. > However, the info can be found easily enough by running jpegtopnm | > pnmfile. If netpbm is not available, well, the dimensions won't be > included. > > We don't have to achieve perfection for it to be useful; if the > height/width are included for some images in some environments, > that still seems worthwhile to me. > > E.g., we could easily write a little helper script "imagesize", put it > in libexec, and have makeinfo call it. That might be simpler than > embedding the image-size-extraction logic into makeinfo. But probably much more complicated than using Image::Size, and also much less efficient. -- Pat
