Re: Why is an image width restricted to being between 0 and 200% of the text area

[Matt Huszagh <huszaghmatt@gmail.com>]

Timothy <tecosaur@gmail.com> writes:

> Just to be clear, this isn’t preventing people from setting image widths to say
> `5.0\linewidth', it just prevents them from being previewed at 5x the buffer text
> width as that seems a bit ridiculous. Happy to reconsider the [0,2] preview
> restriction, but I don’t think ridiculously large in-buffer images make much
> sense.

Thanks for the response Timothy.

I agree that requesting an image to be >2x the buffer text width is a
strange request, and it's not one I've ever tried to give. But, I think
the salient point is that it's a very clear request, and I think org
should carry it out. I'm all in favor of org helping people not shoot
themselves in the foot, but I don't think it should prevent people from
doing so, especially when they're clear about their intentions. I also
think this qualifies as a case where someone /might/ have a valid reason
for doing this.

I guess we could make the upper limit customizable and default to
2.0. But, this is a bit confusing because it doesn't apply to the
original image width. I also think adding too many customizable
variables adds to complexity. I don't know. Thoughts? This also isn't a
feature I've ever needed... so I'm happy to concede and revisit it in
the future if I have a valid use case for it.

Matt