On 12.12.2005 20:05:49 Peter Herweg wrote:
> Yes, you are right. I'm quite surprised by myself.
Thanks for the quick response.
> I will try to fix this the next few days.
I'll commit my changes so you can work from there. It won't hurt to have
SVG support for external-graphics. :-)
> But while playing with the rtf code i noticed following behaviour (Word2000
> If i write "\picscalex75 \picscaley75 \picwgoal1500 \pichgoal900" i get an
> image width of about 2cm in Word2000 (as expected), but when i write
> "\picscalex100 \picscaley100 \picwgoal1125 \pichgoal675" it's larger.
> Can anybody explain this?
I don't have Word2000 to test, but I don't see such behaviour in Word
Viewer 2003 and OpenOffice 2.0. My guess is that pix?goal and picscale?
should not be used together. I've changed the code to only generate one
of the two. It looks fine now locally.
> Kind regards,
> Peter Herweg
> -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Auftrag von Jeremias Maerki
> Gesendet: Montag, 12. Dezember 2005 17:51
> An: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Betreff: RTF: Size of images incorrect?
> (Mostly for Peter Herweg, I guess)
> I tried to implement SVG support for RTF output by converting the SVG
> images through Batik's JPEGTranscoder to a JPEG. That part was easy and
> done in 10 minutes. However, I noticed that all images are currently
> painted much too small in MS Word Viewer 2003 and OpenOffice 2.0.
> In RTFHandler, the image size is set in points. However, it looks like
> RtfExternalGraphic just ignores the "pt" at the end of the string. It
> only looks for percentages. Otherwise, it calculates with twips
> internally (1 twip = 1/20 pt). IMO, "picscalex" and "picscaley" should
> always be 100 and picwgoal and pichgoal should be set to the right
> dimension in twips, i.e. convert to twips already in the RTFHandler to
> keep the RTF library FOP-independant.
> Any ideas? Can anybody confirm that I'm not seeing ghosts here? :-)
> Jeremias Maerki