bug#51596: image-transform-resize has inconsistent semantics wrt scaling up/down

[Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>]

Stefan Kangas <stefan@marxist.se> writes:

> Right, and that's a valid use case of course.  I still find the
> interface inconsistent, as the naming scheme suggests that these three
> options should behave similarly.

Yes.  I think that, basically, the fit to height/width commands are
pretty useless -- nobody wants that, because it'll inevitably make some
images impossible to view.

The two cases that make sense are "scale down so I can see the images"
and "both scale down and scale up, because I want to see as much detail
as possible".

> Perhaps we could even have a "smart" option that only scales images up
> larger than some height and width, and otherwise leaves them in their
> original size.  That's probably the one I would like to use, now that I
> think about it.  (I usually prefer to scale images up, but as you point
> out it's pretty useless to scale small icons to fit the window.)

Sure, or a "don't scale up more than 200%", perhaps.  That's less
finicky, I think.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no