Documentation image source

Chris Johns chrisj at
Thu Oct 8 06:39:22 UTC 2020

On 8/10/20 5:30 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> 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.

That would be a nice solution but I have no idea how to do that. It would have
to work on all browsers on all devices. That is an area where the less I know
the happier I am. Is simpler better in this case, that is a suitably size image?


More information about the devel mailing list