Subject: Re: [boost] [documentation] Are SVG's in documentation viable now?
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-08 11:34:05
First of all, thank you so much to everyone who's responded, it's very
much appreciated!
To answer the various points raised:
* Font Size: Yes the SVG's could be larger, in fact I think I changed
the png dpi size a while back to make those larger, when probably I
should have just changed the font size. In any case any difference in
size between the two is a pure accident that depends on your screen's
size and dpi, as the SVG's are scaled in "real" units where as the png's
just show up at "whatever" size.
* The missing png for the second beta() equation is my SNAFU - that line
shouldn't have been in the table, likewise the first line of the table
has it's formatting messed up because it should be a header, not content.
* Marco thought the SVG's looked uglier - if that's the case then it's
almost certainly a font-substitution issue on your platform/browser, as
they look way nicer (and less fuzzy) here. Investigating the STIX
webfonts is on my TODO list.
* Slow page load: yes I know, sorry! Just dumped everything on one page
to see if it would work. Real pages would have half a dozen svg's max.
* Edward: SVG's are used the same way as PNG's in quickbook, with a
[$myfile.svg].
* Clipping: yes, this is what I was afraid of - at least you didn't get
scroll bars around every equation! I have no real control over the
generated HTML BTW as it all comes from the docbook stylesheets.
* Ellint24 and "?": this looks like something unsupported by SVGMath was
used in the original MathML, I'll investigate.
Thanks all! John.