Thanks, Hussein. Yes, I subsequently found that an absolute measurement (e.g. @width=160mm) works better.
However, the size of unscaled images differs in the docx and the PDF - presumably a resolution issue, I'll try 120dpi. As it happens, it is docx format that I want, and I can always write docx to PDF. The reason I tried pixels rather than millimetres, was that in the XHTML, 160mm was interpreted as 160px (as indicated in the Image Info - this is in Firefox). Since the screenshots in XHTML might as well be original size, I've commented out the call to imageSizeAttributes in the transform (bit naughty). /Roy -----Original Message----- From: Hussein Shafie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 September 2010 13:02 To: Roy MacLean Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [XXE] Image sizing problem with FOP 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. ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.15780) http://www.pctools.com/ ======= ======= Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found. (Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.15780) http://www.pctools.com/ ======= -- XMLmind XML Editor Support List [email protected] http://www.xmlmind.com/mailman/listinfo/xmleditor-support
