> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 7:59 AM > From: "Gavin Smith" <[email protected]> > To: "Christopher Dimech" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Patrice Dumas" <[email protected]>, "help-texinfo gnu" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Width and Height in @image for Html Output fail > > 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 would pose a problem as the image files are 300psi and reach 13cm in width. > That doesn't sound like a great solution, though, because displays > can be different sizes. Quite right. > 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. >
