Re: @image for pdf and html

[daniela-spit]

> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 7:01 PM
> From: "Gavin Smith" <gavinsmith0123@gmail.com>
> To: daniela-spit@gmx.it
> Cc: "help-texinfo gnu" <help-texinfo@gnu.org>
> Subject: Re: @image for pdf and html
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:11:33PM +0100, daniela-spit@gmx.it wrote:
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 at 10:55 PM
> > > From: "Gavin Smith" <gavinsmith0123@gmail.com>
> > > To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> > > Cc: "help-texinfo gnu" <help-texinfo@gnu.org>
> > > 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.

That's what we are currently doing, use low resolution image.
Yes, that's what's needed, a link to the higher resolution image.  In
geophysical mapping, people ultimately want to scrutinise the high
resolution image.  The low resolution image is still useful though, mainly
for display purposes when people are reading the document.