Re: texi2html output validity

[Patrice Dumas]

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 05:04:38PM -0700, Karl Berry wrote:
>     and if it was possible why would it the role of makeinfo to
>     do that?
> 
> It is useful to put the actual width/height of images in the HTML output
> because then browsers can use that info for layout without having to
> read the actual image.  On files with lots of images, it can make a
> noticeable difference in rendering.

Ok.

>     I do not know how to read the height and width from the actual
>     images, 
> 
> Indeed, we surely don't want to load an open-ended number of image
> reading libraries.  I had hoped we could just run the file command, but
> that does not report dimensions for jpeg images.

We could use Image::Size. 
http://search.cpan.org/~rjray/Image-Size-3.232/

It tries to load other modules dynamically only if it failed to find the
image size itself.

> However, the info can be found easily enough by running jpegtopnm |
> pnmfile.  If netpbm is not available, well, the dimensions won't be
> included.
> 
> We don't have to achieve perfection for it to be useful; if the
> height/width are included for some images in some environments,
> that still seems worthwhile to me.
> 
> E.g., we could easily write a little helper script "imagesize", put it
> in libexec, and have makeinfo call it.  That might be simpler than
> embedding the image-size-extraction logic into makeinfo.

But probably much more complicated than using Image::Size, and also much
less efficient.

-- 
Pat