Re: DOCBOOK: DocBook TC Meeting Minutes: 15 Jan 2002

[Yann Dirson <ydirson@fr.alcove.com>]

On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 02:31:31PM -0500, Norman Walsh wrote:
> |    470599 Need an imagedata to fit to max size
> 
>      Doesn't width="100%" scalefit="1" do this?

I'm not sure.  Currently we have the "scale" attribute that takes a
percentage value, and this makes "width" unlikely to get a percentage
value.  TDG says that "Width indicates the width of the graphic",
which arguably, could cover the current use of "scale".

In some way (and slightly off-topic wrt to this RFE), it seems to me
that we wouldn't loose anything by incorporating the values of "scale"
into "width", and getting rid of scale.  That would give at least
assign a meaning to `width="xxx%"'.

What would `width="100%" scalefit="1"' mean ?  Fit to page width ?
Fit to column width ?  This, BTW, reminds me that all of the current
combinations are presentation issues, which should not be here in the
document: if you hardcode some width/depth/scale/scalefit combination
you have to know at least the paper size, and even the image size if
you do not use "scalefit".  This makes a *document* specific to a
paper size - this completely breaks the separation between content and
layout.

What I think we should do is to rework this part of DocBook.

Is it really necessary to add any of these informations ?  I can't
think of any of those parameters that is not layout-oriented.  I guess
that all of them should be handled by the stylesheet, at least as far
as printed output is concerned.  For HTML output, I'm afraid that
could cause some problems, but the complexity of the solution does not
change the problem IMHO.

Opinions ?
-- 
Yann Dirson <Yann.Dirson@fr.alcove.com>                 http://www.alcove.com/
Free-Software Engineer				      Ingénieur Logiciel-Libre
Free-Software time manager    	       Responsable du temps Informatique-Libre
Debian GNU/Linux developper <dirson@debian.org>