Hi Chris,

Chris Bowditch a écrit :
> Vincent Hennebert wrote:
>> Well it seems that target-resolution would also be fine for AFP.
>> Actually, by looking at the doc it seems that this parameter actually
>> has 2 different purposes: the resolution of the output when FOP produces
>> bitmap images, and the resolution of images produced by Batik (although
>> I don’t really get that latter).
>> It will perhaps make sense to separate those 2 purposes and make the
>> former renderer-specific. Something like “output-resolution” would make
>> sense to me. “target-resolution” would be kept as a general setting and
>> would only apply to Batik.
>> Does that make sense?
> Everything except the names. I think it makes sense to have one general
> purpose resolution setting and then renderer specific settings which
> control renderer specific resolution. In the case of AFP this will
> affect more than just imgaes, but for other renderers we are just
> talking about images.

Hmmm, I’m perhaps making a confusion here. I thought target-resolution 
did also apply to the whole images generated by the renderer; i.e., for 
the TIFF renderer, the resolution of the image representing the whole 
document, and not only images inside it. Isn’t that the case? Then, why 
wouldn’t target-resolution also apply to images in PDF output?

Perhaps I should ask the question on fop-user, I’m sure I will find 
there nice developers who will enlighten me...

> "output" and "target" have similar semantics in
> the English language and the distinction between them will not be clear
> enough for the users. Maybe the general purpose one (which currently
> only controls batik) should be "default-resolution" and it could also
> apply to images for renderers which dont have an explicit
> "renderer-resolution"

renderer-resolution sounds fine to me.


Reply via email to