Re: Background images
I didn't so much look which FOs needed background images but didn't support them. It was rather about implementing the various properties and the rendering part. It may still be that some FOs are not yet properly connected (through TraitSetter) to generate background images but if there are any they will surely come up sooner or later. On 31.01.2005 00:15:19 Glen Mazza wrote: > Pardon me, forgot to ask: where did the background images need to be > implemented (i.e., which FO's needed them that the spec doesn't support)? Jeremias Maerki
Re: Background images
Jeremias Maerki wrote: Team, I'm going to implement background images as one of my next steps. I found that even in 1.1 WD there's no way to scale the background image. Should we skip that or should we define our own properties? Maybe Glen wants to talk to the WG about that. Jeremias Maerki Pardon me, forgot to ask: where did the background images need to be implemented (i.e., which FO's needed them that the spec doesn't support)? Thanks, Glen
Re: Background images
On 20.01.2005 19:37:06 Glen Mazza wrote: > --- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Team, > > > > I'm going to implement background images as one of > > my next steps. > > Good. > > > I > > found that even in 1.1 WD there's no way to scale > > the background image. > > Jeremias, please do another scan first of the 1.1 > document--thankfully it's all in one HTML file--search > for both "scale" and "scaling" throughout to (1) make > sure that is the case (there appear to be some new > properties and even formatting objects related to > scaling), and (2) to see if there is any scaling logic > that you're contemplating that may be applicable in > other areas as well. Thanks for the tip. The scan turned up empty. All scaling enhancements seem to apply to external-graphic only. > Next, you may wish to check the AntennaHouse and > RenderX extension element/attribute list. There may > be something you can learn there about background > scaling, also when you send emails to the xsl-editors > list saying "[insert commercial company here] already > does this", etc., it will carry more weight. I've seen the RenderX extensions. It's really surprising that RenderX didn't manage to bring that in, yet. > > Should we skip that or should we define our own > > properties? > > I don't care either way. Although I don't understand > why the specification doesn't already handle > background image scaling. Something is rotten in the > State of Denmark here--this would seem to be a common > need. > > > > Maybe Glen > > wants to talk to the WG about that. > > > > Would be delighted. But imaging issues are beyond my > scope, and it's about time the WG learn more about you > as well. Please do so, also mention that you're from > FOP as well please. (Not that you need my > permission.) > > (This is gonna be great--with both of us sending > comments to the W3C, we can use a good-cop/bad-cop > technique to persuade them. Guess which role I want > to play? ;) LOL! I'll try to write something, but I guess I have some other priorities first. I'll probably also skip these scaling things for now. This can be added later. My enhancement to parse the bitmap resolution might also help a bit in the meantime. Jeremias Maerki
Re: Background images
--- Jeremias Maerki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Team, > > I'm going to implement background images as one of > my next steps. Good. > I > found that even in 1.1 WD there's no way to scale > the background image. Jeremias, please do another scan first of the 1.1 document--thankfully it's all in one HTML file--search for both "scale" and "scaling" throughout to (1) make sure that is the case (there appear to be some new properties and even formatting objects related to scaling), and (2) to see if there is any scaling logic that you're contemplating that may be applicable in other areas as well. Next, you may wish to check the AntennaHouse and RenderX extension element/attribute list. There may be something you can learn there about background scaling, also when you send emails to the xsl-editors list saying "[insert commercial company here] already does this", etc., it will carry more weight. > Should we skip that or should we define our own > properties? I don't care either way. Although I don't understand why the specification doesn't already handle background image scaling. Something is rotten in the State of Denmark here--this would seem to be a common need. > Maybe Glen > wants to talk to the WG about that. > Would be delighted. But imaging issues are beyond my scope, and it's about time the WG learn more about you as well. Please do so, also mention that you're from FOP as well please. (Not that you need my permission.) (This is gonna be great--with both of us sending comments to the W3C, we can use a good-cop/bad-cop technique to persuade them. Guess which role I want to play? ;) Thanks, Glen
Re: Background images
On Jan 20, 2005, at 2:19 AM, Jeremias Maerki wrote: Team, I'm going to implement background images as one of my next steps. I found that even in 1.1 WD there's no way to scale the background image. Should we skip that or should we define our own properties? Maybe Glen wants to talk to the WG about that. Jeremias Maerki +1 for enabling this attribute/feature. Since that's something that is oft-requested (well, considering how many requests we get), I think it's a good idea to implement this. Perhaps, since it's not part of the 1.0 or 1.1 spec (yet), it should be made as an extension (although i don't know how this would work since it's an attribute... maybe by enabling content-width & content-height?)? Web Maestro Clay -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - <http://homepage.mac.com/webmaestro/> My religion is simple. My religion is kindness. - HH The 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet
Background images
Team, I'm going to implement background images as one of my next steps. I found that even in 1.1 WD there's no way to scale the background image. Should we skip that or should we define our own properties? Maybe Glen wants to talk to the WG about that. Jeremias Maerki
