On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Aaron Ecay <aarone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> 2013ko martxoak 19an, Aaron Ecay-ek idatzi zuen:
>> I’m sorry, that was a mistake. I sent a patch to the HTML backend to
>> enable this behavior, but forgot all about it. Then when I checked the
>> code, it looked like the functionality was already there! I’ll follow
>> up with Bastien about the patch, and see what its status is...
>
> I was very confused when I wrote this. The patches I had in mind were
> for a different issue. If
> #+ATTR_HTML: :width 200
> ever worked for me, it was only because of me hacking org into a
> chimeric state. I guess you should continue to use
> #+ATTR_HTML: width=200
> or whatever the working incantation for HTML has traditionally been.
>
Thanks for the clarification, though regardless of the current
state... what is the consensus on what it *should* be? The old lingo
was:
- #+attr_latex: width=Xcm
- #+attr_html: width="Xpx"
That made sense to me since that's how they appear in
\blah[width=Xcm]{file.png} or <img src="" width="Xpx" />.
With the move to :width value, I guess I'd rather see them work the
same or have it be obviously backend-specific vs. having :width Xcm
for LaTeX, and width=200 for html. At least make it identical to the
actual backend syntax (quotes around the 200 for html) or in pure
babel-esque language to unify (:width value, no quotes) for all.
At least that's my thought from a user's perspective.
Thanks!
John
> Sorry for the noise,
>
> --
> Aaron Ecay
