On 2015-08-02 16:52, August Karlstrom wrote:
Apparently some (or most?) browsers, Firefox for instance, do uniform scaling when only one of the width or height attribute is set on an img element. Dillo does non-uniform scaling and changes only the specified dimension. Here is what the reference has to say about it:
"When the object is an image, it is scaled. User agents should do their best to scale an object or image to match the width and height specified by the author."
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#edef-IMG
It seems to be a question of interpretation.
I have posted the question on Stack Overflow: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/31773161/specifying-only-width-or-height-... -- August
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 09:35:09PM +0200, August Karlstrom wrote:
On 2015-08-02 16:52, August Karlstrom wrote:
Apparently some (or most?) browsers, Firefox for instance, do uniform scaling when only one of the width or height attribute is set on an img element. Dillo does non-uniform scaling and changes only the specified dimension. Here is what the reference has to say about it:
"When the object is an image, it is scaled. User agents should do their best to scale an object or image to match the width and height specified by the author."
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#edef-IMG
It seems to be a question of interpretation.
I have posted the question on Stack Overflow:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/31773161/specifying-only-width-or-height-...
FWIW, IMHO, it should scale respecting the original image ratio (just pragmatics). AFAIR, it was/could-be done this way by dillo (using CSS hints) but somewhere in the redesign (GROWS) these image-size hints were lost. @Sebastian, @Johannes, please correct me if I'm wrong here. -- Cheers Jorge.-
On 2015-08-19 00:45, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 09:35:09PM +0200, August Karlstrom wrote:
I have posted the question on Stack Overflow:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/31773161/specifying-only-width-or-height-...
FWIW, IMHO, it should scale respecting the original image ratio (just pragmatics).
AFAIR, it was/could-be done this way by dillo (using CSS hints) but somewhere in the redesign (GROWS) these image-size hints were lost. @Sebastian, @Johannes, please correct me if I'm wrong here.
After a little experimentation it seems like the image ratio is respected when width or height is set in pixels but not when a percentage is used, for instance <img alt="Some image" src="some-image.jpg" width="25%" /> I use Dillo version 3.0.4 in Debian Jessie (stable). -- August
Hi Jorge, On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 07:45:09PM -0300, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 09:35:09PM +0200, August Karlstrom wrote:
On 2015-08-02 16:52, August Karlstrom wrote:
Apparently some (or most?) browsers, Firefox for instance, do uniform scaling when only one of the width or height attribute is set on an img element. Dillo does non-uniform scaling and changes only the specified dimension. Here is what the reference has to say about it:
"When the object is an image, it is scaled. User agents should do their best to scale an object or image to match the width and height specified by the author."
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#edef-IMG
It seems to be a question of interpretation.
I have posted the question on Stack Overflow:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/31773161/specifying-only-width-or-height-...
FWIW, IMHO, it should scale respecting the original image ratio (just pragmatics).
AFAIR, it was/could-be done this way by dillo (using CSS hints) but somewhere in the redesign (GROWS) these image-size hints were lost. @Sebastian, @Johannes, please correct me if I'm wrong here.
as it was mentioned in this thread already the image scaling issue is fixed for quite some time in the main line of the dillo repo. Cheers, Johannes
On 2015-08-19 17:32, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
as it was mentioned in this thread already the image scaling issue is fixed for quite some time in the main line of the dillo repo.
I have downloaded and installed the latest Dillo version 3.1-dev. With the test file below the two images have the same size despite setting width to 25 percent on the second image. Do you get the same result? -- August <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> <title>Dillo Test</title> </head> <body> <div><img alt="Dillo logo" src="http://www.dillo.org/db1.png" /></div> <div><img alt="Dillo logo" src="http://www.dillo.org/db1.png" width="25%" /></div> </body> </html>
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 09:58:51PM +0200, August Karlstrom wrote:
On 2015-08-19 17:32, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
as it was mentioned in this thread already the image scaling issue is fixed for quite some time in the main line of the dillo repo.
I have downloaded and installed the latest Dillo version 3.1-dev. With the test file below the two images have the same size despite setting width to 25 percent on the second image. Do you get the same result?
yes, I get the same result. Interestingly it works ok without the enclosing <div> Johannes
-- August
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> <title>Dillo Test</title> </head> <body> <div><img alt="Dillo logo" src="http://www.dillo.org/db1.png" /></div> <div><img alt="Dillo logo" src="http://www.dillo.org/db1.png" width="25%" /></div> </body> </html>
_______________________________________________ Dillo-dev mailing list Dillo-dev at dillo.org http://lists.dillo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dillo-dev
On 2015-08-19 23:40, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 09:58:51PM +0200, August Karlstrom wrote:
On 2015-08-19 17:32, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
as it was mentioned in this thread already the image scaling issue is fixed for quite some time in the main line of the dillo repo.
I have downloaded and installed the latest Dillo version 3.1-dev. With the test file below the two images have the same size despite setting width to 25 percent on the second image. Do you get the same result?
yes, I get the same result. Interestingly it works ok without the enclosing <div>
If anyone running Dillo 3.0.4 is interested I have made a patch which fixes the image scaling issue (see attachment). With the test document below, the Dillo logo should keep its aspect ratio when the Dillo browser window is resized. <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> <head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> <title>Test</title> </head> <body> <div><img src="http://www.dillo.org/db1.png" alt="Dillo logo" width="50%" /></div> </body> </html> -- August
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 05:32:51PM +0200, Johannes Hofmann wrote:
Hi Jorge,
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 07:45:09PM -0300, Jorge Arellano Cid wrote:
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 09:35:09PM +0200, August Karlstrom wrote:
[...]
FWIW, IMHO, it should scale respecting the original image ratio (just pragmatics).
AFAIR, it was/could-be done this way by dillo (using CSS hints) but somewhere in the redesign (GROWS) these image-size hints were lost. @Sebastian, @Johannes, please correct me if I'm wrong here.
as it was mentioned in this thread already the image scaling issue is fixed for quite some time in the main line of the dillo repo.
Yes, but it still has some problems, as shown in August's example. I usually find image-scaling issues while surfing, so I *knew* there was something there, but never found the time to dig it. Today I made a test page (by no means complete yet), and it shows there are plenty of things right, and some others ignored (attached). The good news is that it seems the mechanisms for solving scaling are still there, and that the main issue comes with percentages. As August's example tests percentages in old style HTML (not CSS), I tested mingling a bit of CSS. If Sebastian confirms me there's not someting fundamentally lacking within percentage scaling, I could work on this issue trying to nail the bizantine plethora of possible combinations. :-P FWIW, in the test-page comments, FF means Firefox. -- Cheers Jorge.-
participants (4)
-
fusionfile＠gmail.com -
jcid＠dillo.org -
Johannes.Hofmann＠gmx.de -
johannes.hofmann＠gmx.de