Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
The K2-->DX family of KF7 devices won't obey the size of the image. I can tell you that without testing. The fact that the image will blow up to the full size of the screen, without any constraining code, is well-established.
The K1 is a very poor testing platform, I'm sorry to tell you. If you test on the DX emulation on the Previewer, you'll have a far more reliable indicator of the vast majority of the devices than using a K1. I can't even imagine where on earth you found one these days, but...{shrug}. The display capabilities/mechanisms of the K1 are not similar to those of the k2-->etc. Without trying to sound remotely snotty, seriously, you can have a K2 in days, if you look around, or a DX, in 1-2 days if you order it from Amazon, and you'll be a lot closer to what you need, than with a first-gen Kindle.
I can absolutely tell you that the only way to get decent image sizing on any image smaller than 100% of the width of the screen is to a) set it using % in KF8 and b) set it using pixels, inline, both height and width, in KF7. That's it. You can do it either with both inline (% and px), or with the % in CSS and the px inline; but it needs to be done.
Test it on the KP. You'll see what I mean.
Hitch
|
Found my K1 one on eBay, $50
Hm. Okay, so, I caved and ordered a used K2 on Amazon. What the hell, why not?
Next order of business, Kindle Previewer. I'm running the latest KP for OSX, version 2.941. I load in my book and switch to "Kindle DX" mode. Nice, big screen, no embedded fonts, seems like a legit KF7.
So, I made two test files, attached screenshots
kf7-image-test-large and
kf7-image-test-small.
Both files, when unpacked, have identical KF7 markup:
Code:
<h1 height="9%" width="0" align="center"><font size="+3" face="Adobe Garamond"><img src="Images/image00852.jpeg" alt=""/></font></h1>
(Interesting, in some earlier tests I had not seen any height or width inline attributes being created by my CSS, and I'm not adding them by hand...and I wonder at the percentage and the zero in there...)
The images in either version are different sizes, as I put into the actual image, and they're clearly displaying at different sizes. Neither are filling the screen.
(As I said earlier, if the image is bigger than the screen, it'll max out at 100%. But that's not quite what you've been saying.)
Thoughts?