On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:11:33PM +0100, [email protected] wrote: > > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 10:55 PM > > From: "Gavin Smith" <[email protected]> > > To: "Christopher Dimech" <[email protected]> > > Cc: "help-texinfo gnu" <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: @image for pdf and html > > > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 10:11:09PM +0100, Christopher Dimech wrote: > > > It has been figured that we cannot use the same file for both > > > pdf/dvi output and html output. Because if the file has too many > > > pixels, the image will be too big for html. We could end up with > > > many calls to image with different files using @iftex and @ifhtml. > > > > You could equally say it's too big for pdf, if the pdf is going to > > put online. It's the same image either way. > > It is html that is limiting resolution, thus capability must be discussed when > compared to pdf output. Html provides serious limitations, unlike in pdf > where you can select the width and height. In geology based manual, the > resolution > is the most important aspect of any image. > > > I don't see anything wrong with using conditionals for different > > output formats to specify different image files, if that is what > > is desired. > > There is nothing wrong. However geology based manuals inherently > have many images, and defining for both is an extremely cumbersome > proposition. Besides the fact that images in html have limited use > because of the number of pixel limitation. Otherwise you cannot > see the text.
What might be a good feature in texi2any for your usage is to display the image in HTML with a low-resolution version (both for page layout, and to save bandwidth), but have a link to higher resolution versions. This is what happens on Wikipedia. This would be quite a bit of work to implement, though.
