Yeah, that's more or less what the formatter should be doing. The problem is that i-f-o and e-g both only create a Knuth box which has a fixed size. No shrink/stretch there, yet.
On 09.12.2005 17:47:13 Andreas L Delmelle wrote: > On Dec 9, 2005, at 17:33, Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > > > > On 09.12.2005 17:06:00 JBryant wrote: > >> The trouble is that I don't want images that are less than the > >> width of > >> the page to be expanded to the width of the page. The old behavior of > >> scaling images that exceeded the size of the container to fit the > >> container and leaving smaller images as is worked perfectly. It > >> may not > >> have met the spec, but I regarded it as a feature of FOP, as it saved > >> me time I would otherwise spend scaling images by hand. Anyway, that > >> won't stop me from using the new version. I'll just scale all > >> the images and go merrily onward. > > > > Ok, I understand. I didn't know that FOP 0.20.5 behaves like that. > > I've > > done a few quick tests to see if I can get the effect you need but > > haven't succeeded. I'll look into it again later. > > Just guessing here, but since content-width="scale-to-fit" will scale > the image to the width of the content rectangle, maybe specifying a > length-range (min/opt/max) for the inline-progression-dimension could > help...? > (The formatter may adjust the ipd if necessary, then scales the image > to fit that...) Jeremias Maerki --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
