RMS: > But I don't think this limit should be absolute. I think it should be > specified as a multiple of the frame height and width, and it should > be given as a floating point number. I'd suggest 2.0 as the default > for this ratio.
Stefan: > All this to say that I think choosing the maximum image size based on > display-pixel-width and display-pixel-height would be preferable than using > frame size. > If you use image slicing, you can in principle show a small area of a much larger image. I don't see how that relates to the dimensions of the frame or display. But it definitely sounds better to scale according to display size rather than frame size (but round up to minimum size e.g. 4096x4096). -- Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cua.dk _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
