David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 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.
Scaling according to display size isn't entirely problem-free either, because Emacs frames can be put on different X displays ;-) I think scaling according to frame size is not a great solution, but it's OK because of the way image loading works. If the frame is initially too small, Emacs won't load the image. But each time you increase the size of the frame, Emacs checks again, and loads the image if the size relative to the frame is now OK. Once an image is loaded, it's put in the image cache, so it will always be displayed regardless of the frame size. The max-image-size code is checked into CVS. I've set a conservative value of 6.0 times the frame width and height. After all, the original rationale for this feature is to avoid over-allocating memory in case a malicious image demands a gigantic image widths/heights of millions of pixels. In ordinary situations, it shouldn't get in the way of the user. _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel