Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"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.
Agreed. That's exactly what I am doing every time. We should make this
the default behaviour instead of the 100% scale which is not what you
want most of the time within figure floats. But I guess the scale option
should be the default for inline graphics.
Correct me if I am wrong but we can tune the insetcommand paramaters in
order to have sensible default depending of where the graphic is
inserted (inline or float).
Abdel.
Maybe
