From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id eOePOPGknGF0DgEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:23:13 +0100 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:bcc0::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id QMtMNPGknGHjGwAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 08:23:13 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89F5B3BD92 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:23:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost ([::1]:56726 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mpR56-0007lc-Mm for larch@yhetil.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 03:23:12 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:59370) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mpR4j-0007lE-6E for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 03:22:49 -0500 Received: from [2607:f8b0:4864:20::634] (port=37655 helo=mail-pl1-x634.google.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mpR4h-0008Pz-Bo for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 03:22:48 -0500 Received: by mail-pl1-x634.google.com with SMTP id n8so16419964plf.4 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 00:22:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=references:user-agent:from:to:subject:date:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version; bh=fvwicfd88mXAzCzJeQfzY0P3T3MoiHgAbisK1InvzkM=; b=DZKvMYOGm2wGuSXCQBRy/jz7MZdGYFjCEKB+LXemitnnRO+ns64Ppv+4uv+V2RICJm 0Naps1qJJZGkpfpkpink9VZeNGxuNA7QSUnEGuvD4Wri76GB+LCdLTeWguwQgbH+6FGi LfBvWiVpXy9ATTkNh92th5AYcY3D+yKa3g8rH88VPEHt38BAb+o9MmafubxSC7IEjW1z ACEUSsK0guF0BaEEY3llOZx2+AmNqvfMfiaMrB/znCRP5136cV1E4jjLRenXvX631H+R Al7CS56KJC7+y+lh1VLoNzPpiBJzPPSdBI8foL/wTIDjuU2nrGyaKiMvzjnRJ/bqr9ns rXUQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:references:user-agent:from:to:subject:date :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version; bh=fvwicfd88mXAzCzJeQfzY0P3T3MoiHgAbisK1InvzkM=; b=Z+FVdXvXn5uQksgwcs7lUwP/XatR/UYnQTf596lBNIRAIwOU4Q6gT6itP9+Z59DRgs O1EePl2Jr/LtbVL+x6EvN+94+2ZG2C6tselG+nX9z1yPEoe7KCD6vVWyyCOwoE/9UOWx OlRl8r8jU/t5uHFoy560tt8vYyyOT0nd2Og8qiGzw7KY+LNPIKXwATVVQH9BJHwoMKS1 z8HIIZYeOsGoqxVvLkV30ac64cE+jNgtsEqvksd/fcPUW8jNxeB+g096bANJ0KmcdJF0 Swj2Qdl87a9i+RCDXySVIqbwVwJuq3Y+BwZDCLXPugybQtnhw2caNhZ88TxfFYf0Zse1 k7SQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532rESvg3eDjn/3W8HpraXZOP+D1fHjYcphWe2yeD4K6wAT1bDqK k8E7nzW5U66N6cQcv1EoXttAmcLslzE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJws73N0r3rZXvczmnEUdFkX3XfrbWSJTtvcUvPdQSpkG+52AmH2sIgxguXLpNUIHDxfxnPSwA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3511:: with SMTP id ls17mr689724pjb.81.1637655765794; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 00:22:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from dingbat (2001-44b8-31f2-bb00-5b65-9e9d-be13-30d5.static.ipv6.internode.on.net. [2001:44b8:31f2:bb00:5b65:9e9d:be13:30d5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r8sm8393573pgp.30.2021.11.23.00.22.44 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 23 Nov 2021 00:22:45 -0800 (PST) References: <87sfvnpfao.fsf@gmail.com> <87zgpvjsv4.fsf@gmail.com> <87pmqrpda5.fsf@gmail.com> User-agent: mu4e 1.7.5; emacs 28.0.60 From: Tim Cross To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org Subject: Re: Why is an image width restricted to being between 0 and 200% of the text area Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 19:14:51 +1100 In-reply-to: <87pmqrpda5.fsf@gmail.com> Message-ID: <87a6hvxovh.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 2607:f8b0:4864:20::634 (failed) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::634; envelope-from=theophilusx@gmail.com; helo=mail-pl1-x634.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -12 X-Spam_score: -1.3 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, PDS_HP_HELO_NORDNS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Emacs-orgmode" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1637655793; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references:list-id:list-help:list-unsubscribe: list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=fvwicfd88mXAzCzJeQfzY0P3T3MoiHgAbisK1InvzkM=; b=XJeXOypi++7PXY7N+Wwg8IxNJRp/vXzZN1T+r9tjMV5KohfdUrqvrlnk2JiC6EnYOTTuZF zd3DlvOu9gNTkAIt6ndlH2TjuHPb/+hrpzi+UTNaKK/aaapCjjRB24WLtxkz+6rVRcuhsq Liq7gJ7e6h7ZPSR4LG7YW6im2YomoPGZg0MN7DiregoCmdFwGusXxuY3cOme7xxBxG0ALX SpObB4g318wrpYBDclx7gcy+peOIMZyo+jEzCOSJod8krbh7iwLcxFvKCdQ6ncyCUERrUR pmkTPq2oOOBmOzRQgShqULKzAXjdvKt9zei3aihl4A0kwAqflihO4F07dTaFgw== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1637655793; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=dxIxDpjkTxoOvYZmzInXSn/IfbvgKmWNAoLzzIH+YwU0wkYF6nS9OIGZFYUIDUNhp5sXco DHvjmFjqKa8M99xHcmu3PGBymLcei1aLa73l1V3OmQNqSIrnSPoBb3CRcq9Z12NFhexB51 dH8kk5/mGAi9hKuaY/zWSYAC84k4IUhCP+iGDnjTPygOyOxX2hqZkFRLX9YDzlmZXPwkYT 1G41/D1rjKqv5cPrCwuJoWHfsIpDds/F1fv2I7mCmIbJrACa623WIieUZeS/Qb+W7buUio /mYTLexv8QvYedZdo4en5n3YkEuJmmuol+k3vG1CxaLnuwyRoEwPWbhRBh4LUg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=DZKvMYOG; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -4.08 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20210112 header.b=DZKvMYOG; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=emacs-orgmode-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 89F5B3BD92 X-Spam-Score: -4.08 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn1.migadu.com X-TUID: rlTA1x1Zq5Zj Matt Huszagh writes: > I agree that requesting an image to be >2x the buffer text width is a > strange request, and it's not one I've ever tried to give. But, I think > the salient point is that it's a very clear request, and I think org > should carry it out. I'm all in favor of org helping people not shoot > themselves in the foot, but I don't think it should prevent people from > doing so, especially when they're clear about their intentions. I also > think this qualifies as a case where someone /might/ have a valid reason > for doing this. +1M. We need to ensure org does not become too opinionated regarding what is reasonable. If there is no good reason to impose an upper limit, we should avoid doing so. Org is so powerful and open to customisation, it is unlikely any of us can foresee all possible scenarios, so we need to be careful not to artificially constrain the possibilities. , > > I guess we could make the upper limit customizable and default to > 2.0. But, this is a bit confusing because it doesn't apply to the > original image width. I also think adding too many customizable > variables adds to complexity. I don't know. Thoughts? This also isn't a > feature I've ever needed... so I'm happy to concede and revisit it in > the future if I have a valid use case for it. > +1M. Org already has an excessive number of custom settings. We need to actively avoid adding mor whenever we can. At first glance, a custom variable seems to be a good option. However, once you take testing and maintenance into consideration and think about the basic testing principal of ensuring all possible paths are tested, you soon see why adding such custom options really increases maintenance overhead. If there is a legitimate technical reason to set an upper limit, then that is fine. However, setting a limit because you cannot imagine anyone wanting to go above it is probably not.