It has been suggested that the font-size used for the body of the HTML
files is a bit too small. I have created a version of the rxmath book
with a slightly larger font-size and I would like some feedback on your
preference - the original, smaller
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/lqv49jl2obgwxjn/rxmath.zip?dl=0> version
versus the newer, larger
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/f48m470358i6ai0/rxmath-bigger.zip?dl=0>
version. You need to download them both, unzip them to separate folders
and open the index.html file of each folder in your browser window. You
can then navigate through the book(s) and see which version you prefer. TIA,
Gil
On 3/8/2020 4:51 PM, Gil Barmwater wrote:
Newest version of rxmath HTML files/folders is here
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/lqv49jl2obgwxjn/rxmath.zip?dl=0>. I believe
I've gotten the majority of the issues handled so please have another
look.
Thanks, Gil
On 3/8/2020 11:52 AM, Gil Barmwater wrote:
Hi P.O.,
Thanks for doing the detailed comparison and confirming that the
differences were ones of which I was aware.
I have experimented with deleting the width=297 from BOTH the div
tags and the span tags and the results look great! Now to find how
that attribute is getting generated!
Gil
On 3/8/2020 10:19 AM, P.O. Jonsson wrote:
Dear Gil,
Rony have given most of the information already but I have listed
some differences as seen in the output, please have a look in the
attached pdf
For what is is worth: most differences I can see are to your
advantage! I think this is coming a long way already.
H�lsningar/Regards/Gr�sse,
P.O. Jonsson
oor...@jonases.se <mailto:oor...@jonases.se>
Am 08.03.2020 um 15:11 schrieb Gil Barmwater
<gbarmwa...@alum.rpi.edu <mailto:gbarmwa...@alum.rpi.edu>>:
Thanks a lot Rony for that research! I had noticed that the HTML
produced by Publican used object tags while the newer Docbook
stylesheets produced img tags but that is as far as I had gotten.
Now to see where the width=297 comes from and what happens when it
is removed. Thanks again! GB
On 3/8/2020 9:47 AM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
On 07.03.2020 20:52, Gil Barmwater wrote:
I've made more progress here and now have a set of HTML files,
etc. for the rxmath book. In spite of the fact that the source is
essentially the same and the stylesheets are as well, the output
appears different in a number of ways. I can only attribute this
to the different versions of the DocBook stylesheets being used
by the two processes or possibly the different way the two handle
xinclude. I have put the zipped folder in my Dropbox here
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/lqv49jl2obgwxjn/rxmath.zip?dl=0> and
would appreciate feedback on what to tackle in order to make them
look better.
Your HTML renderings look great, even better than P.O. Publican
renderings, congratulations !!
The area that needs attention is how the size for the graphics
gets defined, it is also where your renderings look better than
Publican's, where clipping occurs. Example:
* 2.3 RxCalcSqrt()
o Gil's HTML text for the syntax diagram:
<div class="mediaobject"><img src="images/funcs/funcs_rxcalcsqrt.svg"
width="297" />
o Publican's HTML text for the syntax diagram:
<div class="mediaobject"><object data="images/funcs/funcs_rxcalcsqrt.svg" type="image/svg+xml"
width="297"> </object></div>
The general problem with the definition of the size of the syntax
diagrams lies in setting the width to the absolute value "297"
pixels!
The original docbook text for this is:
<imagedata fileref="images/funcs/funcs_rxcalcsqrt.svg" scale="55" />
The svg has a bounding box of 472x68:
<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"; width="472" height="68">
So it seems that "297" is probably hardcoded in the xsl.
This has in principal the downside that all images, irrespectible
how wide they are in reality, get reduced/enlarged to fit the
297px width. This makes the syntax diagrams look irregularily
sized and ugly. (In the Publican case it is even worse as there
the object-element is used which will clip the image.)
Consulting [1] one can see that 297px width corresponds to 159.28
mm = 15.93 cm = 6.22 in.
Looking at all the svg bounding boxes in the rxmath book, the
widest one is "funcs_rxcalcpower.svg" with a width of 634 px =
167.75 mm = 16.78 cm = 6.55 in. If rendering for paper the
printable width (A4) is wide enough to host the syntax diagram
without any distortion or clipping.
Therefore I would suggest to remove the width attribute from the
img element (and use the img element [2] over the object element [3]).
Finally, both, the Publican and Gil's HTML renderings show that
the svg images display and scale in the highest resolution.
@P.O.: there would be� no need anymore to recreate the HTML
renderings for the rexxpg book.
So, Gil, thumbs up!� +1
Great job!
---rony
[1] "Convert Pixel (X) to Millimeter":
<https://www.unitconverters.net/typography/pixel-x-to-millimeter.htm>
[2] HTML "img" element: <https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_img.asp>
[3] HTML "object" element:
<https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_object.asp>
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
--
Gil Barmwater
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
--
Gil Barmwater
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
--
Gil Barmwater
--
Gil Barmwater
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
Oorexx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
