blob: bfa989a2c87241c42b3eb127af76e685ef019ec0 (
plain)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
|
<refentry xmlns="http://docbook.org/ns/docbook"
xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
xmlns:xi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XInclude"
xmlns:src="http://nwalsh.com/xmlns/litprog/fragment"
xmlns:xsl="http://www.w3.org/1999/XSL/Transform"
version="5.0" xml:id="nominal.image.width">
<refmeta>
<refentrytitle>nominal.image.width</refentrytitle>
<refmiscinfo class="other" otherclass="datatype">length</refmiscinfo>
</refmeta>
<refnamediv>
<refname>nominal.image.width</refname>
<refpurpose>The nominal image width</refpurpose>
</refnamediv>
<refsynopsisdiv>
<src:fragment xml:id="nominal.image.width.frag">
<xsl:param name="nominal.image.width" select="6 * $pixels.per.inch"/>
</src:fragment>
</refsynopsisdiv>
<refsection><info><title>Description</title></info>
<para>Graphic widths expressed as a percentage are problematic. In the
following discussion, we speak of width and contentwidth, but
the same issues apply to depth and contentdepth.</para>
<para>A width of 50% means "half of the available space for the image."
That's fine. But note that in HTML, this is a dynamic property and
the image size will vary if the browser window is resized.</para>
<para>A contentwidth of 50% means "half of the actual image width".
But what does that mean if the stylesheets cannot assess the image's
actual size? Treating this as a width of 50% is one possibility, but
it produces behavior (dynamic scaling) that seems entirely out of
character with the meaning.</para>
<para>Instead, the stylesheets define a
<parameter>nominal.image.width</parameter> and convert percentages to
actual values based on that nominal size.</para>
</refsection>
</refentry>
|
