Hi Aaron, On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 02:40:55PM -0400, Aaron Ecay wrote: > Hi Suvayu, > > 2013ko martxoak 12an, Suvayu Ali-k idatzi zuen: > > I believe Nicolas mentioned sometime back the :width option is available > > only for floats whereas :options is the only way for included graphics > > files (because of how LaTeX works). This addition is a bit inconsistent > > with that line of thought. > > I helped write this change, so that org could support kinds of graphics > where the width is not specified by an options string, but rather by > another means. The new syntax is hopefully more consistent in the long > run: one uses :width to set the width of anything. > > Nicolas and I originally discussed a transition period where the default > :width would not be inserted, but ultimately we decided to just go ahead > with the change. The new exporter is after all not yet stable, though > thanks to the fantastic effort of the community it is continually > improving.
That is understandable, but if the aim is to support other kinds of graphics that support :width, I expect the change to not interfere with graphics that do not support it. I think there are two cases here: 1. the author targets the document for a specific backend that does not support :width 2. the author expects to export to multiple backends and wants to be as general as possible so uses and expects :width to work. So now the question is, is it reasonable to expect the author in case (1) is aware of this subtlety and use :width even though her/his backend does not support it, or would it be better to handle these deficient cases "specially" and help the author by not clobbering their :options argument. I hope I expressed myself clearly. Cheers, -- Suvayu Open source is the future. It sets us free.
