Bug#95980: black borders on all images
On 05.01.04 Roland Stigge (stigge@antcom.de) wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 14:29, Frank Küster wrote:
> > In the test document I included in my previous mail, I get an
> > analogous behavior: The line of the \fbox intersects with the
> > \hline instead of just touching it.
> >
> > Is this not the error in \hline you were talking about?
>
> I'm not really sure now. But I guess the issue is similar. A bar,
> but in in your own example, only the horizontal additional bar.
>
> > which is the command latex2html uses to convert the ps file to a
> > bitmap?
>
> It's own /usr/bin/pstoimg
>
Should be irrelevant as the error occurs already in images.dvi (using
tmview). What makes me nervous is that there are so many new
definitions in the header of images.tex. Changing two of them with
the following patch makes the borders disapper.
--- images.tex Thu Jan 22 10:52:18 2004
+++ /home/hille/tmp/sarge/images.tex Thu Jan 22 10:38:57 2004
@@ -92,10 +92,13 @@
\kern.1em\copy\sizebox}\ifdim\dp\sizebox>0pt\kern.1em\else\kern.3pt\fi
\ifdim\hsize>\wd\sizebox \hrule depth1pt\fi}}}
-\def\lthtmlsetmath{\hbox{\vrule width.1em\kern-.05em\vtop{\vbox{%
+\def\lthtmlsetmath{\hbox{\vrule width0em\kern-.05em\vtop{\vbox{%
\kern.1em\kern0.8 pt\hbox{\hglue.17em\copy\sizebox\hglue0.8 pt}}\kern.3pt%
\ifdim\dp\sizebox>0pt\kern.1em\fi \kern0.8 pt%
- \ifdim\hsize>\wd\sizebox \hrule depth1pt\fi}}}
+ \ifdim\hsize>\wd\sizebox \hrule depth-1pt\fi}}}
\def\centerinlinemath{%
\dimen1=\ifdim\ht\sizebox<\dp\sizebox \dp\sizebox\else\ht\sizebox\fi
\advance\dimen1by.5pt \vrule width0pt height\dimen1 depth\dimen1
but I don't think that help us much. images.tex still uses amsmath.
If commenting out the \usepackage{amsmath} the document compiles fine
and has a little black angle at the lower right corner of the matrix.
It becomes bigger if I change for example \vrule width.1em to 1em.
What does that mean? Are all these measures taken out of amsmath.sty
or where do they come from?
Just a few ideas during playing with it.
H.
--
sigmentation fault
Reply to: