Nicolas, Nicolas Goaziou <n.goaz...@gmail.com> writes:
>> It's a bad default for >> - Picture smaller than textwidth >> - Picture crafted to the document which shouldn't have a width. >> >> It's a decent solution for >> - pictures which are unintentionally larger than textwidth. But IMO >> it's my responsibility, and not Org's, to fix these >> images/situations. > > Exactly. > > I'm not selling you the default value as the perfect solution: it isn't, > obviously. I even agree that in most situations, no default value is > better. Agree. > However, in my experience, the worst situation is the image (much) > larger than textwidth, which makes it difficult to even read the > produced document. It isn't as bad for enlarged small pictures. Perhaps. I'm not convinced. If the float width is removed I can change the default and never be affected by these design choices and it's all good. > Now, the ".7\textwidth" for floats is harder to explain. I don't feel > very strong about it, and I don't mind removing it (meaning > `org-latex-image-default-width' would also apply > to floats). Using org-latex-image-default-width is more reasonable IMO. Then at least there won't be any 'nasty' surprises when adding caption and for me I can set the default width to "" and be done with it. For people who use it it might also be reasonable to introduce a org-latex-wrap-image-default-width or making org-latex-image-default-width a list ordered by type of element/float type. E.g. '((float . ".9\\textwidth") (wrap . ".5\\textwidth")). . . >> I like the "" better. It works better with my "intuitive logic". > > I have pushed a patch which should fix your initial problem about :width > "" not being taken into account. Could you confirm the new behaviour > works as expected? I'll check it out and report back. I can't access git from this network (high port numbers are blocked for "security" reasons) so I'll only try it out later. Thanks, Rasmus. -- Hooray!