Subject: Re: [boost] [documentation] Are SVG's in documentation viable now?
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-08 10:05:50
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Alex Perry
> Sent: 08 December 2014 14:38
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [documentation] Are SVG's in documentation viable now?
>
>
> On 08 December 2014 12:52 John Maddock [mailto:boost.regex_at_[hidden]] wrote:-
> >
> > Folks I need your opinions,
> >
> > Since it's inception, Boost.Math has used PNG versions of equations
> > and graphs even though scalable SVG versions have been available.
> > Unfortunately, a variety of issues have prevented their use.
> > Fortunately, the logjam now appears to have cleared, and use of SVG's
> > appears viable.
> >
> > So... I wonder if I can get folks to point their browsers at
> > http://jzmaddock.github.io/doctest/html/svg_test/equations.html and
> > let me know if there are any issues? One that I'm aware of, is that
> > the equations reference Window's specific fonts, but so far in my
> > tests this appears not to be an issue.
> >
> Just thought in the light of recent posts on bed-time reading on tablets with
> boost.book would try this on a mobile device.
>
> On Android Kit-Kat default browser there is some clipping of these equations
but I'm
> not quite sure how you are calculating the width and height for the svg
elements
> since these are just given in your html.
>
> I've attached a screen shot showing the clipping for airy_bi
>
> If I adjust the sizes in the html to say <object type="image/svg+xml"
> data="equations/airy_bi.svg" width="300" height="125"></object> then no
clipping
> occurs
>
> HTH
>
> Alex
>
> Sorry for re-post if original does get through but the list didn't like the
size of the png
> I attached so I've resent without it - see
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/oh0r7uqjrn9duyq/Screenshot_2014-12-08-14-19-
> 29.png?dl=0
> Which hopefully is accessible.
I can confirm this clipping on Moto G Android KitKat on all the asinh(x) acosh
beta (a,b)equations.
gamma_p_derivative(a, x) are scrunched at the ve(a, point.
And I noted a possible typo in the equation for ellint24 where the tan-1
equation has a ? in it.
Some of the integral limits like pi/2 collide with the integral sign.
We may be touching the limits of the rendering software?
And a takes a which to render this monster overdose of equations.
But overall it looks very good.
Paul