DOCBOOK: Re: A proposal to clarify the semantics of DocBook graphics

[Norman Walsh <ndw at nwalsh dot com>]

/ Dave Pawson <DaveP@dpawson.freeserve.co.uk> was heard to say:
| At 08:43 07/02/2002 -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
|
|>content-width="3in" says the image (before scaling) should be 3in
|>wide. width="3in" says that the area reserved for presentation of the
|>image (irrespective of scaling) should be 3in wide.
|
| Bit too subtle Norm?

That content-width sets the width of the content and width sets the
width of the reproduction area (viewport)?

|>I don't feel strongly about this one. Anyone else have an opinion?
|
| KISS principle sadly lacking?

I'm not sure I follow. There are two things that you might want to be
able to control: the size of the image rendered and the size of the
area into which it is rendered. This is consistent with CALS, XSL FO,
and FOSI usage.

At present, DocBook has four attributes: depth, width, scale, and
scalefit. A recent thread[1] demonstrated that this paucity of
attributes leads to some confusion.

I thought that providing explicit, independent control over the two
regions might improve things. Perhaps I was mistaken.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook/200201/msg00082.html

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>      | The stone fell on the pitcher? Woe
http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/ | to the pitcher. The pitcher fell
Chair, DocBook Technical Committee | on the stone? Woe to the
                                   | pitcher.--Rabbinic Saying