Timothy <tecos...@gmail.com> writes: > Just to be clear, this isn’t preventing people from setting image widths to > say > `5.0\linewidth', it just prevents them from being previewed at 5x the buffer > text > width as that seems a bit ridiculous. Happy to reconsider the [0,2] preview > restriction, but I don’t think ridiculously large in-buffer images make much > sense.
Thanks for the response Timothy. I agree that requesting an image to be >2x the buffer text width is a strange request, and it's not one I've ever tried to give. But, I think the salient point is that it's a very clear request, and I think org should carry it out. I'm all in favor of org helping people not shoot themselves in the foot, but I don't think it should prevent people from doing so, especially when they're clear about their intentions. I also think this qualifies as a case where someone /might/ have a valid reason for doing this. I guess we could make the upper limit customizable and default to 2.0. But, this is a bit confusing because it doesn't apply to the original image width. I also think adding too many customizable variables adds to complexity. I don't know. Thoughts? This also isn't a feature I've ever needed... so I'm happy to concede and revisit it in the future if I have a valid use case for it. Matt
