From: Timothy <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Matt Huszagh <email@example.com>
Cc: Max Nikulin <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix regex for determining image width from attribute
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2021 12:54:27 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4048 bytes --]
Thanks for your thoughtful deliberation on this.
> I think the essential disagreement is whether org should take an action if not
> explicitly told to do so. I think org should only perform some action if given
> a clear directive. In this context, I feel that org is guessing what the user
> wants and taking an action based on that guess.
I broadly agree with this, but I think this is provided by the four forms that
`org-image-actual-width' can take:
⁃ `t', in which case the actual image width is always used
⁃ an integer, in which case that will always be used as the width
⁃ `nil', which produces the guessing behaviour we’re discussing
⁃ `(val)', which guesses, falling back on `val'
> Ok, back to the fact that there are multiple considerations here. The
> first issue is whether specifying a width for a backend reflects an
> intention to have that same width in the org buffer. As I previously
> stated, I don’t agree that one implies the other. But, as also
> previously discussed, this was a decision that was made almost 10 years
> ago, so changing it would be a breaking change, etc. Because of that,
> I’m not totally sure what org should do, and I expect a lot of people
> won’t want to change this.
I’m not opposed to /expanding/ the behaviour (with due consideration), which could
resolve some of your concerns, but I don’t think it would be good to prevent the
current behaviour, which at this point seems well-established.
> The other consideration is if we take the first point as a given (that
> org should use width directives for other backends), should it also
> attempt to interpret directives that are ambiguous? In this case, do we
> interpret 1.2 as 1.2? If could only be ,
> I’d be inclined to agree that this is logical. I also understand the
> case for , though this is slightly less clear. But, what if
> someone used 1.2? Seems a bit unusual I know, but maybe
> someone would want this. Again, I don’t think we should guess if there’s
> a chance we could be wrong.
I feel this very much depends on how bad “guessing wrong” is, and as previously
discussed, since it’s rather easy to correct or set `org-image-actual-width' to
prevent this, I’m not sure it warrants being terribly concerned about.
> I totally agree with you that we don’t want to implement a pseudo latex
> parser here. But I feel like all this complexity is easily resolved by
> just requiring that people be explicit about their intentions (i.e.,
> specify #+attr_org: :width). That would avoid all the complex behavior
> and surprises that could result from making intelligent guesses about
> what the user wants.
I think prioritising `#+attr_org: :width' makes a lot of sense, but I feel quite
reluctant to /require/ it.
> Anyway, let me know what you want in terms of the patch. I still think
> prioritizing attr_org should be its own patch and changing the regex and
> all the other behavior should be a separate issue. But, if you’d like me
> to perform the change I mentioned in my last email, I can take the time
> to write that up and include it in the same patch.
Thanks for continuing with this. Moving forward, I think it would be best to:
⁃ Make a patch just for prioritising `#+attr_org'
⁃ Make a patch just improving the regex (before or after the `#+attr_org' patch)
⁃ Discuss changing the behaviour of image previews separately later / in another
thread, linking to this thread when doing so.
How does that sound?
Lastly, a comment on your documentation patch from earlier. I like the changes
to `org-image-actual-width', however I think you’ve been over-eager with scrapping
the current docstring for `org-display-inline-image--width'. Since the behaviour
is implemented there, I think it should at a minimum be documented there.
The docstring for a function referring to a variable’s documentation for how it’s
handled by the function seems a bit weird.
All the best,
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-12-01 5:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-11-21 19:08 [PATCH] Fix regex for determining image width from attribute Matt Huszagh
2021-11-21 19:20 ` Timothy
2021-11-21 19:51 ` Matt Huszagh
2021-11-22 8:29 ` Timothy
2021-11-22 16:11 ` Matt Huszagh
2021-11-22 17:54 ` Timothy
2021-11-22 20:53 ` Matt Huszagh
2021-11-23 4:59 ` Kyle Meyer
2021-11-23 5:14 ` Timothy
2021-11-23 5:38 ` Matt Huszagh
2021-11-23 5:39 ` Timothy
2021-11-23 7:46 ` Matt Huszagh
2021-11-23 16:44 ` Max Nikulin
2021-11-24 1:57 ` Matt Huszagh
2021-11-24 14:48 ` Max Nikulin
2021-11-24 15:59 ` Matt Huszagh
2021-11-24 17:00 ` Max Nikulin
2021-11-25 16:43 ` Max Nikulin
2021-11-29 0:23 ` Matt Huszagh
2021-11-29 5:13 ` Timothy
2021-12-01 3:24 ` Matt Huszagh
2021-12-01 4:54 ` Timothy [this message]
2021-12-03 2:06 ` Matt Huszagh
2021-11-29 12:15 ` Max Nikulin
2021-11-22 14:30 ` Max Nikulin
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).