From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: image size limit? Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:35:46 +0200 Message-ID: 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 1129723481 24482 80.91.229.2 (19 Oct 2005 12:04:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:04:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Chong Yidong , rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 19 14:04:38 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESCgL-0002Xf-9N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:04:33 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ESC0R-00024W-2p for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:21:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ESB7q-0007aD-Gj for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 06:24:50 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1ESAnM-0003m8-A7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 06:04:10 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ES9RT-0000ro-66 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:37:00 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.41.46.236] (helo=pfepb.post.tele.dk) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1ES9R7-0005Qp-39; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 04:36:37 -0400 Original-Received: from kfs-l.imdomain.dk.cua.dk (unknown [80.165.4.124]) by pfepb.post.tele.dk (Postfix) with SMTP id DB8B95EE0BD; Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:36:21 +0200 (CEST) Original-To: Stefan Monnier In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:33:35 -0400") 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:44311 Archived-At: 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). -- Kim F. Storm http://www.cua.dk