Re: [boost] [documentation] Are SVG's in documentation viable now?

Subject: Re: [boost] [documentation] Are SVG's in documentation viable now?
From: John Maddock (boost.regex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-08 11:34:05

First of all, thank you so much to everyone who's responded, it's very 
much appreciated!

To answer the various points raised:

* Font Size: Yes the SVG's could be larger, in fact I think I changed 
the png dpi size a while back to make those larger, when probably I 
should have just changed the font size.  In any case any difference in 
size between the two is a pure accident that depends on your screen's 
size and dpi, as the SVG's are scaled in "real" units where as the png's 
just show up at "whatever" size.
* The missing png for the second beta() equation is my SNAFU - that line 
shouldn't have been in the table, likewise the first line of the table 
has it's formatting messed up because it should be a header, not content.
* Marco thought the SVG's looked uglier - if that's the case then it's 
almost certainly a font-substitution issue on your platform/browser, as 
they look way nicer (and less fuzzy) here.  Investigating the STIX 
webfonts is on my TODO list.
* Slow page load: yes I know, sorry!  Just dumped everything on one page 
to see if it would work.  Real pages would have half a dozen svg's max.
* Edward: SVG's are used the same way as PNG's in quickbook, with a
[$myfile.svg].
* Clipping: yes, this is what I was afraid of - at least you didn't get 
scroll bars around every equation!  I have no real control over the 
generated HTML BTW as it all comes from the docbook stylesheets.
* Ellint24 and "?": this looks like something unsupported by SVGMath was 
used in the original MathML, I'll investigate.

Thanks all!  John.