Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitch
It looks to me from the quoted code that the containing block is bloody tiny, vis:
height:343px;
width:595px;
And then the contained element is 100% of that. I mean, sh*t, 343px is roughly...what, an eighth of the width of a Fire tablet screen in landscape now and what, one-fourth of the width of it in portrait? TEENY.
For an Oasis, at 1,680 × 1264 pixels, again, you'd be talking a fourth-to-third of the width.
It's the container that's constraining the image. If you use Phillip's stuff, you won't have to worry about that.
Hitch
|
Yeah, I forget how InDesign handles stuff like this, but I would just about bet its assigning to the parent element whatever the actual pixel dimensions of the image are. If so, I have no clue why it would do that, as it seems to me that would have the exact same result as leaving all of the dimensions unset--though it's likely I'm forgetting something obvious.