19.511 style:rel-height - scale-min definition is unclear

XMLWordPrintable

    • Type: Bug
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Priority: Minor
    • ODF 1.2 CD 06
    • Affects Version/s: ODF 1.2 CD 05
    • Component/s: Text
    • None
    • Hide

      ad 19.511 style:rel-height:
      Replace
      "scale-min: equals the value scale, except that the calculated width or height is a minimum height rather than an absolute one."
      by
      "scale-min: the height should be calculated as for value scale, but the calculated height is a minimum height rather than an absolute one."

      ad 19.512.2 <draw:frame>:
      Replace
      "scale: the height should be calculated depending on the width, so that the ratio of width and height of the original image or object size is preserved."
      by
      "scale: the width should be calculated depending on the height, so that the ratio of width and height of the original image or object size is preserved."
      and replace
      "scale-min: equals the value scale, except that the calculated width or height is a minimum height rather than an absolute one."
      by
      "scale-min: the width should be calculated as for value scale, but the calculated width is a minimum width rather than an absolute one."

      ad 20.239 and 20.330.1
      Replacements according to the above ones.

      Show
      ad 19.511 style:rel-height: Replace "scale-min: equals the value scale, except that the calculated width or height is a minimum height rather than an absolute one." by "scale-min: the height should be calculated as for value scale, but the calculated height is a minimum height rather than an absolute one." ad 19.512.2 <draw:frame>: Replace "scale: the height should be calculated depending on the width, so that the ratio of width and height of the original image or object size is preserved." by "scale: the width should be calculated depending on the height, so that the ratio of width and height of the original image or object size is preserved." and replace "scale-min: equals the value scale, except that the calculated width or height is a minimum height rather than an absolute one." by "scale-min: the width should be calculated as for value scale, but the calculated width is a minimum width rather than an absolute one." ad 20.239 and 20.330.1 Replacements according to the above ones.
    • Hide

      Please resolve as proposed - please adjust wording, if needed.

      Show
      Please resolve as proposed - please adjust wording, if needed.

      The value scale-min now reads:

      "scale-min: equals the value scale, except that the calculated width or height is a minimum height rather than an absolute one."

      The value scale reads:

      "scale: the height should be calculated depending on the width, so that the ratio of width and height of the original image or object size is preserved."

      I was replacing the "equals" in scale-min when I noticed that "...is a minimum height rather than an absolute one." isn't meaningful.

      Nor does it make much sense to say that "...the calculated width or height is a minimum height.." Both width and height are a minimum height?

      Is the purpose to say that the original ratio of the original object size is not preserved? (implementation dependent?)

            Assignee:
            Patrick Durusau
            Reporter:
            Patrick Durusau
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved: