[rfc-i] Scaling factors for graphics
mellon at fugue.com (Ted Lemon) Sat, 12 July 2014 02:05 UTC
From: "mellon at fugue.com"
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 22:05:01 -0400
Subject: [rfc-i] Scaling factors for graphics
In-Reply-To: <53C0441B.40509@gmail.com>
References: <1405105687.14446.553.camel@mightyatom> <53C0441B.40509@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ABA2775B-809D-4E76-8757-E2A738BC5223@fugue.com>
On Jul 11, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote: > I can't parse "actual size". Scaling to fit the screen/window/paper > size is a given, isn't it? The only question is whether the author > needs any control over it. If an image is really detailed, scaling it to fit a very small screen may be the wrong thing to do; it may be better to let the user scroll it. You see this in ebooks sometimes--a figure will be so tiny that it's impossible to make sense of it, and it can't be expanded. So I think it does make sense to specify a minimum size in inches or millimeters for an image. If some presentation system wants to shrink it more, that's fine, but the information is useful.
- [rfc-i] Scaling factors for graphics Elwyn Davies
- [rfc-i] Scaling factors for graphics Brian E Carpenter
- [rfc-i] Scaling factors for graphics Ted Lemon
- [rfc-i] Scaling factors for graphics Joe Touch
- [rfc-i] Scaling factors for graphics Ted Lemon
- [rfc-i] Scaling factors for graphics Joe Touch
- [rfc-i] Scaling factors for graphics Ted Lemon
- [rfc-i] Scaling factors for graphics "Martin J. Dürst"
- [rfc-i] Scaling factors for graphics Larry Masinter