Documentation image source

[Sebastian Huber]

On 08/10/2020 08:18, Chris Johns wrote:

> On 8/10/20 4:31 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> On 08/10/2020 03:01, Chris Johns wrote:
>>
>>> I see generated .png and .pdf for some images which I am questioning we need.
>>> The user document images I have contributed are only .png files so I am not sure
>>> why a PDF is needed for some.
>> Images in a vector format is very important for a high quality PDF. Using PNG
>> for the PDFs is not really good.
> Yes is does help but I am not convinced by the "very important" bit. I looked at
> the user manual executable pictures in the PDF at 400% on a quality monitor and
> they hold up nicely. All you get to see is the anti-aliasing effects which is
> understandable.
>
> HTML and PDF need to be at the same quality level and I have shown this can be
> achieved even with .png files. PDF is not something we should treat as special.
> At the moment I cannot read the dot HTML images.
>
> The PDF quality depends on the contents of the PDF fragment. It may not always
> be vectors so I am not sure we can assume this. I have seen PDF get abused with
> horrible results. It looks like .dot is vector which is fine.
>
> Manual generation is something I would like to avoid and especially if more than
> one output file type is being generated. The poor HTML quality of the dot
> generated .png files highlights this. Can they please be improved?
It would be nice to use a vector format for HTML also. Maybe we should 
use SVG instead of PNG.