From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Sebastien Vauban" Subject: Re: Align argument in #+attr_latex for tabular env. is whitespace sensitive Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:53:00 +0100 Message-ID: <86bobll88j.fsf@somewhere.org> References: <87d2w5ban3.fsf@gmail.com> <8638wxq4cp.fsf@somewhere.org> <87bobl7mhu.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org To: emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@public.gmane.org Hi Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou wrote: > "Sebastien Vauban" writes: > >>> This syntax is wrong anyway. It should be: >>> >>> #+attr_latex: :width "5cm" >>> >>> or >>> >>> #+attr_latex: :width 5cm >> >> From the tests I made on images, with the Beamer back-end, those did not work. >> It had to be: >> >> #+ATTR_LaTeX: :options "width=5cm" >> >> Right? > > Correct. :width is for tables. Thanks. For my information (and not only for me, I guess), is there a fundamental reason (I guess yes) why width is a first-class parameter for tables and an option among others for images? Looking from a 50 ft perspective, I would even imagine the opposite: images will have to be scales in almost all cases (that is: have their image attribute set), while tables will often take the space they need to. Is there a reason why images can't have their own attributes as well? I would find that much, much more easy to apply, if we don't have to write the same "functional" request in two different manners, depending on the context. Best regards, Seb -- Sebastien Vauban