https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47311
--- 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 > though). > 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. Thanks Peter -- Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug.
