[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kim F. Storm) writes: > 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).
It sounds to me like the limits should be configurable, with a somewhat conservative default. Applications where larger dimensions might be appropriate (image viewers with provisions for panning, i.e.) can allow them in their own buffers using buffer-local settings of the variables limiting the size. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
