On 8/10/20 5:30 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 08/10/2020 08:18, Chris Johns wrote: >> On 8/10/20 4:31 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: >>> On 08/10/2020 03:01, Chris Johns wrote: >>> >>>> I see generated .png and .pdf for some images which I am questioning we >>>> need. >>>> The user document images I have contributed are only .png files so I am not >>>> sure >>>> why a PDF is needed for some. >>> Images in a vector format is very important for a high quality PDF. Using >>> PNG >>> for the PDFs is not really good. >> Yes is does help but I am not convinced by the "very important" bit. I >> looked at >> the user manual executable pictures in the PDF at 400% on a quality monitor >> and >> they hold up nicely. All you get to see is the anti-aliasing effects which is >> understandable. >> >> HTML and PDF need to be at the same quality level and I have shown this can >> be >> achieved even with .png files. PDF is not something we should treat as >> special. >> At the moment I cannot read the dot HTML images. >> >> The PDF quality depends on the contents of the PDF fragment. It may not >> always >> be vectors so I am not sure we can assume this. I have seen PDF get abused >> with >> horrible results. It looks like .dot is vector which is fine. >> >> Manual generation is something I would like to avoid and especially if more >> than >> one output file type is being generated. The poor HTML quality of the dot >> generated .png files highlights this. Can they please be improved? > It would be nice to use a vector format for HTML also. Maybe we should use SVG > instead of PNG.
That would be a nice solution but I have no idea how to do that. It would have to work on all browsers on all devices. That is an area where the less I know the happier I am. Is simpler better in this case, that is a suitably size image? Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
