Re: Image mode

[Chong Yidong <cyd@MIT.EDU>]

Juri Linkov <juri@jurta.org> writes:

> A different case is image autodetection.  When the image file has an
> extension unusual for image files or has no extension at all, then it
> would be a (possibly bad) surprise for the user to see it displayed as
> an image.  I agree that there should be an option that by default before
> displaying the image from files with non-image extensions should either
> ask for confirmation before visiting such file in image-mode, or (better)
> visit the file just in image-minor-mode with more explanations shown
> in the echo area.

As Richard has argued, IF displaying an image can cause a security
risk, it doesn't matter whether or not that image was autodetected or
had the relevant file name.  So let's please not worry about this.

Many other programs that deal with images engage in image
autodetection by content, so the consensus in the software community
seems to be that the kind of risks we are worried about are not worth
the hassle of protecting against.  More precisely, if an image library
is susceptible in this way, it is the image library that should be
fixed.

As I mentioned in a preceding email, I think the recently-added
`disabled' tag for image-toggle-display should be removed.  I think we
can leave the behavior where you have to type C-c C-c to display an
image after entering image-mode; but we should provide an option (not
enabled by default) to display images automatically upon entering
image-mode, as before.