References:  <22015.25264.915747.221264@zaphod.ms25.net>
Message-ID:  <201509210224.t8L2OX1o006904@bilbo.localnet>
Date:         Sun, 20 Sep 2015 22:24:33 -0400
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project
              <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE>
From: Boris Veytsman <borisv@LK.NET>
Subject: Re: graphics package feature request
To: LATEX-L@LISTSERV.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE
In-Reply-To:  <22015.25264.915747.221264@zaphod.ms25.net> (message from
              Reinhard Kotucha on Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:51:44 +0200)
Precedence: list
Envelope-To: <rainer.schoepf@GMX.NET>
Status: R

RK> Date:         Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:51:44 +0200
RK> From: Reinhard Kotucha <reinhard.kotucha@WEB.DE>


RK> The viewport is specified in terms of pixels.  After downsampling the
RK> photos I had to change the viewport arguments (divide them by the
RK> downsampling factor).  This had to be done manually and thus was quite
RK> inconvenient.

RK> It would be quite handy to have an option which behaves similar to
RK> viewport but accepts arguments relative to the size of the original
RK> graphic, for instance [0.15 0.2 0.87 0.98].

I am sorry if this is an offtopic here, but the package rviewport in
LaTeX2e (full disclosure: written by me and paid for by the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) does exactly this:

     \includegraphics[rviewport=0.15 0.2 0.87 0.98, clip]{image}

is the syntax of the package.

I have no objection, of course, if L3 uses this in the core graphics
instead of a contributed code.

-- 
Good luck

-Boris

Whether your covers star a male or a female, I read your magazine for the
articles
		-- Leo Costales, in "Outside July 2005"