From: Adam C. <ad...@ch...> - 2003-04-18 21:48:54
|
On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:42:01 -0700 David Goodger <go...@us...> wrote: > +``figwidth`` : integer or "image" > + The width of the figure in pixels, to limit the horizontal space > + used. A special value of "image" is allowed, in which case the > + included image's actual width is used (requires PIL_ [#]_). If the > + image file is not found or the required software is unavailable, > + this option is ignored. > + > + Sets the "width" attribute of the "figure" DTD element. Is there any special reason why this option isn't simply called ``width`` instead of ``figwidth`` (which looks very ugly for me). Also, it would be much more useful if it specified the width in percent relative to the width of the page (which makes sense for the Latex writer, for example). I know that it's hard to implement for the HTML writer (HTML sucks) but it could be solved if you provide an eg. --basewidth option or similar. -- Adam Chodorowski <ad...@ch...> The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense. -- E. W. Dijkstra |
From: David G. <go...@py...> - 2003-04-18 23:03:13
|
Adam Chodorowski wrote: > Looking at the documentation of the "image" directive, "width" there has > exactly the same semantics. So why not simply use it for "figure"? Just > because you inherit from something doesn't mean you change all attribute > names... No, different semantics. "width" affects the inner image only, scaling (shrinking or expanding) it as necessary. "figwidth" affects the enclosing figure box, and doesn't scale anything. Isn't this clear from the description? This option does not scale the included image; use the "width" `image`_ option for that. Do the docs need a diagram? :: +-------------------------+ | figure | | +-------------------+ | | | image | | | | | | | |<--- width ------->| | | +-------------------+ | | | |<------ figwidth ------->| +-------------------------+ The main purpose for "figwidth" is to use ":figwidth: image" to get figure captions to wrap nicely, which I needed to build my parents' web page at <http://starship.python.net/~goodger/trip2003/> (you can even see a picture of me & my family there!). >> Care to implement it? > > Sorry, no. :-/ My TODO list is currently veeery long, and I want to avoid > adding items to it... But you don't mind adding to *MY* TODO list, is that it? Thanks a lot! ;-) -- David Goodger http://starship.python.net/~goodger Programmer/sysadmin for hire: http://starship.python.net/~goodger/cv |
From: Adam C. <ad...@ch...> - 2003-04-18 23:18:00
|
On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 19:02:02 -0400 David Goodger <go...@py...> wrote: > > Looking at the documentation of the "image" directive, "width" there has > > exactly the same semantics. So why not simply use it for "figure"? Just > > because you inherit from something doesn't mean you change all attribute > > names... > > No, different semantics. "width" affects the inner image only, scaling > (shrinking or expanding) it as necessary. "figwidth" affects the > enclosing figure box, and doesn't scale anything. Ah, that makes sense then. > Isn't this clear from the description? It seems I didn't read the whole description... [...] > Do the docs need a diagram? :: Diagrams are always nice. :-) [...] > >> Care to implement it? > > > > Sorry, no. :-/ My TODO list is currently veeery long, and I want to avoid > > adding items to it... > > But you don't mind adding to *MY* TODO list, is that it? Thanks a lot! > > ;-) Ofcourse. :-P -- Adam Chodorowski <ad...@ch...> If studies were interesting, the world would come to a halt and nothing would ever get done :) -- James Kehl |
From: David G. <go...@py...> - 2003-04-18 22:09:37
|
Adam Chodorowski wrote: > Is there any special reason why this option isn't simply called > ``width`` instead of ``figwidth`` (which looks very ugly for me). Because "width" is already taken. The "figure" directive inherits (copies) all the options from "image". > Also, it would be much more useful if it specified the width in > percent relative to the width of the page (which makes sense for the > Latex writer, for example). I know that it's hard to implement for > the HTML writer (HTML sucks) but it could be solved if you provide > an eg. --basewidth option or similar. Fine with me, although I think it should do both ("50" implies pixels, "50%" is a percentage). Perhaps eventually it should even support units (e.g. "50em", "50px", "50mm", etc.) as has been requested before. Care to implement it? -- David Goodger http://starship.python.net/~goodger Programmer/sysadmin for hire: http://starship.python.net/~goodger/cv |
From: Adam C. <ad...@ch...> - 2003-04-18 22:40:23
|
On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:08:27 -0400 David Goodger <go...@py...> wrote: > > Is there any special reason why this option isn't simply called > > ``width`` instead of ``figwidth`` (which looks very ugly for me). > > Because "width" is already taken. The "figure" directive inherits > (copies) all the options from "image". Looking at the documentation of the "image" directive, "width" there has exactly the same semantics. So why not simply use it for "figure"? Just because you inherit from something doesn't mean you change all attribute names... > > Also, it would be much more useful if it specified the width in > > percent relative to the width of the page (which makes sense for the > > Latex writer, for example). I know that it's hard to implement for > > the HTML writer (HTML sucks) but it could be solved if you provide > > an eg. --basewidth option or similar. > > Fine with me, although I think it should do both ("50" implies pixels, > "50%" is a percentage). Perhaps eventually it should even support > units (e.g. "50em", "50px", "50mm", etc.) as has been requested > before. Seems like good ideas. > Care to implement it? Sorry, no. :-/ My TODO list is currently veeery long, and I want to avoid adding items to it... -- Adam Chodorowski <ad...@ch...> Coward, n.: One who in a perilous emergency thinks with his legs. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" |