Re: Width and Height in @image for Html Output fail

[Gavin Smith]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 09:44:28PM +0100, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> 
> > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 at 9:33 PM
> > From: "Patrice Dumas" <pertusus@free.fr>
> > To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> > Cc: "help-texinfo gnu" <help-texinfo@gnu.org>
> > Subject: Re: Width and Height in @image for Html Output fail
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 09:32:08PM +0100, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> > > Have noticed that when using @image for html output, setting
> > > the width and height fails.
> >
> > Not sure what you mean about that, but it is documented that
> >
> >  The optional WIDTH and HEIGHT arguments to the '@image' command (see the
> >  previous section) specify the size to which to scale the image.  They
> >  are only taken into account in TeX.
> >
> > --
> > Pat
> 
> The problem that I have encountered war that the image was to large
> and the text too small.  Then when I zoom, and the text becomes
> big enough, the image becomes enormous that I cannot view it.

Could you shrink the images in the files you are using in HTML to
have fewer pixels?  As far as I understand it by default images in
HTML are displayed with 1 file pixel to 1 display pixel.

That doesn't sound like a great solution, though, because displays
can be different sizes.

I wonder if there would be any harm in outputing the width and
height attributes for HTML as well, espcially if they are given
in display-independent units such as ems.