Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> writes: > Björn Bidar <bjorn.bi...@thaodan.de> writes: > >>> It looks like you are respecting the alignment specifications, set via >>> org-image-align or the :align property of #+attr_*, but not the :width >>> property. Is the idea that the preview implementation that provides the >>> image should independently use org-display-inline-image--width? >> >> The width is set before the inline image is created. I'm not sure how >> this should be handled. Is the with set when creating the inline image >> Ihor? >> If the width is set before the image is created how should it be handled >> in >> the preview image-data function? > > Both alignment and width are derived from LINK AST node. > I am not sure what is the problem. > AFAIU, Karthik is simply asking why you decided to calculate alignment > from LINK, but not width.
My question was because the width is set through the width of the inline image, i.e. the image-data passed through the preview function. Is there no difference if function using org-link-review-image-data has not set the width of the image and then we set the with of the overlay instead? >>> At minimum this requires making org-display-inline-image--width a public >>> function. But it would be good for org-link-preview-image-data to >>> respect both properties. >> >> I agree with both but I'm not sure what should be done on this. > > If we think about the API function to be more useful, we can derive > alignment and width from LINK itself by default, but also provide > optional parameters, so that the caller can override the values > manually. If both alignment and width parameters are explicitly > specified, LINK does not have to be provided. How would that work? Make link align and with optional and fail if align or with are missing without link?
