On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 09:44:28PM +0100, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 at 9:33 PM > > From: "Patrice Dumas" <[email protected]> > > To: "Christopher Dimech" <[email protected]> > > Cc: "help-texinfo gnu" <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: Width and Height in @image for Html Output fail > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 09:32:08PM +0100, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > > Have noticed that when using @image for html output, setting > > > the width and height fails. > > > > Not sure what you mean about that, but it is documented that > > > > The optional WIDTH and HEIGHT arguments to the '@image' command (see the > > previous section) specify the size to which to scale the image. They > > are only taken into account in TeX. > > > > -- > > Pat > > The problem that I have encountered war that the image was to large > and the text too small. Then when I zoom, and the text becomes > big enough, the image becomes enormous that I cannot view it.
Could you shrink the images in the files you are using in HTML to have fewer pixels? As far as I understand it by default images in HTML are displayed with 1 file pixel to 1 display pixel. That doesn't sound like a great solution, though, because displays can be different sizes. I wonder if there would be any harm in outputing the width and height attributes for HTML as well, espcially if they are given in display-independent units such as ems.
