From: Michael Orlitzky <michael@orlitzky.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2023 02:51:12 +0000 (-0400)
Subject: io-svg.c: back to diagram width and height once again.
X-Git-Tag: 0.0.1~32
X-Git-Url: https://gitweb.michael.orlitzky.com/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=2de63283757c15667a91c28fd312e904696c9d47;p=libsvgtiny-pixbuf.git

io-svg.c: back to diagram width and height once again.
---

diff --git a/io-svg.c b/io-svg.c
index 341d9e5..cf8864a 100644
--- a/io-svg.c
+++ b/io-svg.c
@@ -300,21 +300,19 @@ static GdkPixbuf* gdk_pixbuf_from_svg_buffer(char* buffer,
   }
 
 
-  /* We're using the viewport width and height and not the diagram
-   * width/height for the image. The diagram can be of a different
-   * size and aspect ratio than the viewport, and our main use case is
-   * for icons that are generally square and reasonably sized. If the
-   * diagram is "small," then we want to scale it up until it fits
-   * nicely in the viewport before rendering it. That's as opposed to
-   * rendering the image small, and letting GDK scale it up. Of course
-   * this reasoning makes the assumption that the viewport is usually
-   * larger than the diagram.
-  */
+  /* I've gone back and forth on this about five times: we use the
+   * diagram width and height, and not the viewport width and height.
+   * This can ultimately render an image that's larger than the
+   * viewport size, but I think GDK will resize the final pixbuf
+   * anyway. More importantly, rendering small icons at a larger
+   * (viewport) size seems to make the whole thing go ape-shit.
+   * So for now I'm back in the diagram camp.
+   */
   pb = gdk_pixbuf_get_from_surface(cairo_get_target(cr),
 				   0,
 				   0,
-				   VIEWPORT_WIDTH,
-				   VIEWPORT_HEIGHT);
+				   diagram->width,
+				   diagram->height);
 
 
   if (!pb) {