From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Goaziou Subject: Re: Align argument in #+attr_latex for tabular env. is whitespace sensitive Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 20:44:03 +0100 Message-ID: <877gm98irg.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87d2w5ban3.fsf@gmail.com> <8638wxq4cp.fsf@somewhere.org> <87bobl7mhu.fsf@gmail.com> <86bobll88j.fsf@somewhere.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52363) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U6RCy-0000P0-Jj for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:44:39 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U6RCs-0007jR-Fv for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:44:32 -0500 Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]:50598) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1U6RCs-0007jH-97 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:44:26 -0500 Received: from public by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1U6RD9-0001Nv-3V for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2013 20:44:43 +0100 In-Reply-To: <86bobll88j.fsf@somewhere.org> (Sebastien Vauban's message of "Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:53:00 +0100") 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@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Sebastien Vauban Cc: public-emacs-orgmode-mXXj517/zsQ@plane.gmane.org Hello, "Sebastien Vauban" writes: > 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. It's LaTeX's fault! In tables, width is an argument between curly brackets. In other words, it has a specific location among the command arguments. On the other hand, in images, width is just an option between square brackets. And the same brackets can contain other options. So, the easiest implementation was to follow LaTeX's conventions. An argument within curly brackets gets its own keyword. Optional arguments are stuffed within an `:options' keyword. With care[fn:1], "width" option could be extracted from `:options' keyword and get its own `:width' keyword. Do you want to give it a try? Regards, [fn:1] By deciding what to do when width is specified in both :options and :width keyword, for example. -- Nicolas Goaziou