From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: image size limit? Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:20:20 +0200 Message-ID: <85ek6hitq3.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> References: <87oe5v7q19.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87k6giiqh3.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com> <87hdbht7v9.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <87d5m3zu20.fsf@stupidchicken.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1129736063 5528 80.91.229.2 (19 Oct 2005 15:34:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:34:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Chong Yidong , emacs-devel@gnu.org, Stefan Monnier , rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 19 17:34:19 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESFtY-0001fH-JN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:30:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESFtY-0000Qx-1I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:30:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ESCyp-0004cv-Lr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:23:39 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ESCyj-0004aM-4I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:23:39 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESCyI-0004QA-Ho for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:23:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1ESCyH-0003ps-Km for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:23:06 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lola.goethe.zz) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1ESCy6-00044m-46; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:22:54 -0400 Original-Received: by lola.goethe.zz (Postfix, from userid 1002) id 098651C4CD7D; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:20:20 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) In-Reply-To: (Kim F. Storm's message of "Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:35:46 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:44319 Archived-At: storm@cua.dk (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