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