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

[Christopher Dimech]

> Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 7:59 AM
> From: "Gavin Smith" <gavinsmith0123@gmail.com>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: "Patrice Dumas" <pertusus@free.fr>, "help-texinfo gnu" 
> <help-texinfo@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: Width and Height in @image for Html Output fail
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 09:44:28PM +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 would pose a problem as the image files are 300psi and reach 13cm
in width.

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

Quite right.

> 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.
>