--- Comment #18 from Peter Coppens <pc.subscripti...@gmail.com> 2009-07-22
00:16:37 PST ---
>>I fixed that by multiplying the scales by scaleFactor instead of
>>overwriting that latter:
Yeah..that seems correct.
> I have doubts about that scale extension, I must say. It seems very ad-hoc to
> me. Can't that be left to some post-processing mechanism? For PDF output this
> usually is a job that is handled by the printer. For PNG output I'm sure that
> there are plenty of programs that can do that very well (actually I had a
> better quality result when re-scaling the PNG output with an external program
> than by using the new extension —might be a problem with the Java2D renderer
Obviously scaling can be handled through a post processing step, just like
adding the pdf boxes can be handled using e.g. PDFBox after fop has rendered
the stylesheet to pdf. This is what we currently use. But it is very inelegant
as we now need to also store 'template/stylesheet' information outside the
stylesheet, dispatch postprocessing based on output type, and it also adds
extra processing overhead where, with the integrated approach, almost no extra
overhead is needed. Once confronted with things like 'adverts' where page size
options are very restricted by publishers it does seem to make sense to
integrate it all together, at least from a 'users' perspective. Whether it
makes sense for fo(p), I feel not very well placed to comment (at lease the box
requirement has been requested before)
> Also, is there a use case for a non-proportional scale (x scale != y scale)?
> Not that having different x and y factors makes the whole thing a lot more
> complicated, but...
Publishers do restrict aspect ratio's. It does not make sense, layout wise, to
do 'big' non-proportional scalings, but small factors allow to reuse the same
stylesheet page content, for different 'publishers' and that does make the
amount of maintenance a lot more manageable.
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.