LATEX-L Archives

Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project


Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 08:50:18 +0000
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <[log in to unmask]>
Message-ID: <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
From: Joseph Wright <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (25 lines)
On 06/01/2011 11:12, Frank Mittelbach wrote:
>  > Scaling here means 'stretching the content of the box', i.e. 
>  > graphic(s/x)'s \scalebox and \resizebox.
> I might add that the stretching and scaling is a part that I'm least convinced
> off. Not that it is wrong or should be taken out, but that I doubt that this
> particular functionality is often needed. There are use cases for it, I
> guess. But in many cases a designer wouldn't want to loose control over font
> sizes which will be the result of such type of scaling.

The current scaling/resizing code is meant to be equivalent to graphicx
scaling operations for graphics. It seems likely that user-level 'box'
functions for LaTeX3 will actually use coffins. After implementing the
rotation code, looking at graphicx suggested that resizing should also
be provided. (This will be needed for including graphics in LaTeX3
documents, for example.) So the aim here was not so much complex design
layouts as getting on with implementing something that will be needed at
some stage.

The same argument also applies to boxes with stretchable components.
However, this is 'to be done'. As Frank says, this may be an area where
an alternative interface is in the end the best approach.
Joseph Wright