Roy MacLean wrote:
> 
> I have just upgraded to XXE Pro, and got it talking to XDR - fantastique!
> Consequently, I am trying out the DITA Conversion from within XXE, as I can
> do this directly on files (maps, topics) in XDR.
> Up to now, I have been running ditac from a command prompt (bat file), and
> incidentally using a free-standing FOP 0.95 installation (downloaded
> November 09).
> 
> In a User Guide I am currently writing, I have screenshots (as PNGs), which
> are, say, 30cm wide.
> In the DITA topics, the image elements have @width=600px, which at 96dpi
> scales them to about 16cm.

I'm not sure it can be computed this way.

[1] How does FOP convert pixels (px) to an absolute size. Is it really
by considering that 1 inch contains 96 pixels?

[2] FOP takes into account the image resolution if found in the image
file. Therefore may be the resulting size depends on the software which
has created the image file.



> Processing these with ditac + the stand-alone FOP, these resize correctly.
> However, processing these from within XXE - that is, using the XXE embedded
> FOP, no scaling takes place, and the images appear at original size (and
> thus run way off the right side of the page).
> The FO file is correct, in that the width attribute is there (and so the
> conversion to docx works fine - of course).
> 
> As far as I can tell the FOPs are the same version (0.95); however, the
> stand-alone one uses Xalan, and the XXE one uses Saxon.
> Could this be the difference? 

No.

* ditac uses free-standing FOP, but *not* its Xalan component. Like XXE,
ditac always uses Saxon to transform XML files.

* By default, The FOP plug-in for XXE uses a 120dpi default image
resolution. The free-standing FOP uses 72dpi.



> Any other ideas? 

No.



> Anyone else found this problem?

With XEP and XFC invoked by XXE, @width=600px reduces the size of a
large screenshot (1440x840 created by xv, which does not seem to add
resolution info to PNG files) in the PDF/ODT to approximately 15cm.

With FOP invoked by XXE, @width=600px (or @width=600) does *not* seem to
reduce the size of a large screenshot in the PDF. However @width=16cm
works fine.

With FOP invoked by ditac, @width=600px reduces the size of a large
screenshot in the PDF/ODT to approximately 25cm (which is much too large).

Therefore, the different default image resolutions (120dpi versus 72dpi)
seem to explain what happens. Second, specifying @width=16cm seems to
give more consistent results than specifying @width=600px.


 
--
XMLmind XML Editor Support List
[email protected]
http://www.xmlmind.com/mailman/listinfo/xmleditor-support

Reply via email to