[l2h] \includegraphics with \width=\anewcommand[param]?

[Chris Jepeway]

Ross:

Thanks, things are much better after declaring the macro
arg to \width as an IGNORED_COMMAND.  Figures are now
showing nicely in the HTML.

I have some new questions about how and why l2h does its thing,
though.  These, so I get a better understanding of how to use it.
Let me know if these ??'s (and mebbe others like it later) are either:

	o  too pesky

	o  belong on some other list

	o  should go off-list

> [ Using a user-defined \fitfig macro as an arg to \includegraphics ]
> is not fine, as the value to be returned is not knowable
> to LaTeX2HTML at the time it substitutes parameters into
> user-defined macros.
I don't understand why l2h makes these substitutions in
the parts of in the LaTeX input that get processed in
images.tex.  That is, if the \fitfig macro defn is being
passed on to LaTeX for handling in images.tex, I'm not
following why its use/expansion is being performed by
l2h when building images.tex.

> [ info on telling l2h to ignore the \fitfig macro ]
> [ via ignore_commands in .latex2html-init file    ]
Thanks *very* much, this works perfectly.

> Also, you will need to limit the applicability of the
> normal LaTeX definition of \fitfig to appear only
> within the correct contexts, including  images.tex .
OK.  I (think I) get the bit about what the {images,latex}only
environments do.  What I don't understand is *why* the defn of
\fitfig needs to change based on the context in which it gets
used.  Which leads me to the more important question: *what*
should the different definitions be?

> Hope this helps,
Thanks again, it certainly has. 

BTW, please don't take "I don't understand" to mean "I think it's wrong."
I'm just trying to get a better handle on how latex2html works.  Grotting
through the perl source has left me...scratching my head and muttering "urk?"

> 	Ross Moore
Chris <jepeway@blasted-heath.com>.