Hi,
I
created myself an account on docbook sourceforge and submitted a bug
report.
What do you think the best way to proceed is in the
mean time? Continue using contentheight (with validation error) or
stop using ignore.image.scaling and specify sizing attributes for each
HTML image?
Regards
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Stayton
[mailto:]
Sent: 03 March 2007 08:00
To:
Chris Borg
Cc:
Subject:
Re: [docbook-apps] intrinsic size of images
Indeed, this seems to be a bug in the handling of
image sizing attributes in html/graphics.xsl. The result is an img with
height="", which browsers interpret as zero height it seems. Could you
please file a bug report on the DocBook SourceForge site so this can get tracked
and fixed?
Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
DocBook Consulting
----- Original Message -----
From:
Chris Borg
To: 'Bob Stayton'
Cc:
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 2:33
AM
Subject: RE: [docbook-apps] intrinsic
size of images
Hi,
I was following this thread as I was working with
image sizing at the time. I changed the attribute contentheight to
contentdepth as per the comments. This removed a validation error I was
receiving (Attribute "contentheight" must be declared for element type
"imagedata"). However, I encountered problems with images not displaying
in HTML (ok in PDF). It seems
contentdepth has a problem when used with the param ignore.image.scaling
(set to non-zero) in my customization layer (chunk) . I did notice that images
that don't have attributes are displayed e.g. those attached to the
<note> tag still displayed in HTML.
Using contentdepth and setting ignore.image.scaling"
select="'0'" displays the image HTML (but not very nicely though). As a result
I am currently setting
ignore.image.scaling to non-zero and use the attribute contentheight as this gives the
required output. However, I still left with a validation error.
I am
a newbie to Docbook so may be in error or mis-understanding but something
doesn't seem quite right.
Thanks....
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Stayton
[mailto:]
Sent: 18 February 2007
06:44
To: Hinrich Aue;
Subject: Re: [docbook-apps]
intrinsic size of images
I found the problem by validating a sample file
with the attributes you were trying to use. The description in my book
has a typo. Where it says contentheight, the attribute name is actually
contentdepth in DocBook. When I validated, it pointed out that I had an
invalid attribute.
If you are using FOP 0.93, then it works with the
right attribute name. If you are using FOP 0.20.5, it is a known problem
that it does not handle image scaling correctly.
Bob Stayton
Sagehill Enterprises
DocBook Consulting
----- Original Message -----
From:
Hinrich Aue
To:
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 2:16
AM
Subject: AW: [docbook-apps] intrinsic
size of images
Hello again,
but I was not specific
enough.
I'm trying to get the exact behaviour described
at
http://www.sagehill.net/docbookxsl/ImageSizing.html
> To keep a graphic for printed output at its
natural size unless it is too
> large to fit the available width, in which case
shrink it to fit, use
> scalefit="1", width="100%", and
contentheight="100%" attributes.
I tried nearly every combination
of
Width
Contentheight
Scalefit
But it does not work.
When I use
> scalefit="1", width="100%", and
contentheight="100%" attributes.
Then the images are scaled
wrong.
But I cannot figure out wich part is
wrong
Xsltproc, Fop or my brain? (most likely my brain,
I'm stuck)
What works for me now
is:
Use no attributes for small images - works
fine
Use width=100% attributes for images too big for the
pdf page - images are scaled to the right size.
Thanks,
Hinrich
