Hello,
Rick Frankel writes:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 10:21:39AM +0100, Bastien wrote:
>> Rick Frankel writes:
>>
>> > I thing the solution is to use an tag for svg, but an
>> > tag for the rest.
>>
>> Yes -- I'm no HTML guru, but this corresponds to what I see in most
>> HTML pages.
>
> Ch
Rick Frankel writes:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 10:21:39AM +0100, Bastien wrote:
>> Rick Frankel writes:
>>
>> > I thing the solution is to use an tag for svg, but an
>> > tag for the rest.
>>
>> Yes -- I'm no HTML guru, but this corresponds to what I see in most
>> HTML pages.
>
> Change app
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 10:21:39AM +0100, Bastien wrote:
> Rick Frankel writes:
>
> > I thing the solution is to use an tag for svg, but an
> > tag for the rest.
>
> Yes -- I'm no HTML guru, but this corresponds to what I see in most
> HTML pages.
Change applied. You can use the html attribut
Rick Frankel writes:
> I thing the solution is to use an tag for svg, but an
> tag for the rest.
Yes -- I'm no HTML guru, but this corresponds to what I see in most
HTML pages.
--
Bastien
Rick Frankel writes:
>> BTW, I tried using
>
>>
>
> This does not work because the close tag is required according to the
> spec (like a script tag).
>
Yes, I figured that that was probably the case, even though FF seemed to
accept it (although I'm no longer sure what I have and have not
tried.
On 2014-01-09 16:10, Nick Dokos wrote:
Exporting this to HTML produces tags like this:
,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
`
I attach a patch[fn:1] that changes these to tags (the patch
is
proof-of-concept only, not meant for integration into org core - it'll
need a fair amount of work b
Summary
---
I'm wondering whether it's a good idea to chnage the HTML exporter's
handling of images: my specific proposal is to use tags instead
of tags.
Rationale
--
I got data to plot and I wanted to use SVG, rather than PNG,
in order to be able to resize the plots to fit whatever
