From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: "Richard M. Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel
Subject: Re: image size limit?
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:39:29 -0400
Message-ID: <E1ERiK1-00056q-J9@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <87oe5v7q19.fsf@stupidchicken.com>
	<E1EPjP3-0007dR-7H@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<87k6giiqh3.fsf@pacem.orebokech.com>
	<E1EQ9SF-0007Ve-SF@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<87hdbht7v9.fsf@stupidchicken.com>
	<E1ERYor-0008Uh-Cs@fencepost.gnu.org>
	<87d5m3zu20.fsf@stupidchicken.com>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1129606896 17359 80.91.229.2 (18 Oct 2005 03:41:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 03:41:36 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 18 05:41:31 2005
Return-path: <emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165])
	by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1ERiKk-00060A-PT
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2005 05:40:15 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43)
	id 1ERiKk-0004NM-06
	for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:40:14 -0400
Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1ERiK3-00044C-D6
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:39:31 -0400
Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1ERiK2-00043u-Nl
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:39:31 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ERiK2-00043q-Ec
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:39:30 -0400
Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1ERiK2-0003EM-Lj
	for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:39:30 -0400
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1ERiK1-00056q-J9; Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:39:29 -0400
Original-To: Chong Yidong <cyd@stupidchicken.com>
In-reply-to: <87d5m3zu20.fsf@stupidchicken.com> (message from Chong Yidong on
	Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:56:39 -0400)
X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." <emacs-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/emacs-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:emacs-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel>,
	<mailto:emacs-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=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:44232
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/44232>

    > 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.

    What frame should we then use? The selected frame?

The frame that the image is to be displayed in.

    That's not really logical, the frame that issues the call to load an
    image (which is where we check the image size) may not be the frame
    that ends up displaying it.

How could they be different?