>>>>> "Georg" == Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Georg> Uwe Stöhr wrote: >> I wrote: >>> In my opinion the best solution would be to calculate the >>> aspectration from the image bounding box and calculating the width >>> and height accordingly. We already have the infrastructure for >>> this. I'll try to implement this until tomorrow. >> Attached is the patch, now the width and height are calculated >> according to the aspect ratio. Georg> That is too much black magic IMHO. The fields should _not_ be Georg> set automatically to any number. For example, what happens if Georg> you tick the check box and then unset it again? This should be Georg> a noop, but with your patch it is not. Agreed. Moreover, I do not think that we should entice people to always use explicit lengths (centimeters, inches...). Most of the cases, a percentage of column width or text width is more appropriate IMO. Are people going to get a ruler and measure the size they want? JMarc
