Marshall Schor wrote:
Thilo Goetz wrote:
<snip>
How did you arrive at the numbers you put in the file?
It was ugly. 1) make up a guess for the width=. 2) run the build, and
looked at the HTML output using FireFox or IE.
3) take a ruler, measure the size of the box
4) edit the html being viewed - find the spot generating this, remove
the <table> ... that is wrapping the "<img ...>", and delete the width=
attribute on the img, allowing it to display in its "native" size.
5) press "reload" in the browser, and measure the native size
6) change the width parameter by multiplying by the ratio of the changed
size to the original.
When I was doing this, I had to find an old ruler and had a spreadsheet
open on my screen. Lucky for me I had a nice flat-screen display to
measure on. A colleague walked into my office while I was doing this
and wondered what the heck I was doing??? :-)
Sorry I asked, I forgive you the inches ;-)
PDF looks ok now, but the Swing html viewer still has the same problems.
I suspect this viewer isn't handling the CSS. I'll take a look, maybe
later today.
You can try this out by creating a launch for CVD and adding
.../uima-docbooks/target to the classpath.
Unfortunately, the whole DocBook build no longer works for me after
your changes. It complains about the xi:include namespace.
This is a known issue, caused by the IBM Java 1.4.2 including a broken
version of Xerces. Switch to IBM Java 1.5.0 and it will work. Or I
think you posted some way to change the startup of Java with some
parameter to allow the right Xerces to be used.
Argh, user error. I set my workspace JVM back to 1.4 because I was
working on CVD and didn't want to introduce any more recent Swing
dependencies. I now have my Ant JVM set to 1.6, and it not only works
again, it's another 20% faster :-)
P.S. It would be nice if we could use metric instead of imperial
measures ;-) Inches don't compute in many parts of the world...
Feel free to change this. Try and keep the same resolution - the JPEG
resizing looks bad even if just a little bit off.
Yes, I noticed that. I thought you had some nifty tool to get it for
you. I tried to use IrfanView, which can compute the size of a jpeg
according to a print resolution for you. However, I think we have more
important things to worry about...
--Thilo
