On Fri, 18 Apr 2003 18:08:27 -0400 David Goodger <goodger@...> wrote:
> > Is there any special reason why this option isn't simply called
> > ``width`` instead of ``figwidth`` (which looks very ugly for me).
> Because "width" is already taken. The "figure" directive inherits
> (copies) all the options from "image".
Looking at the documentation of the "image" directive, "width" there has
exactly the same semantics. So why not simply use it for "figure"? Just
because you inherit from something doesn't mean you change all attribute
> > Also, it would be much more useful if it specified the width in
> > percent relative to the width of the page (which makes sense for the
> > Latex writer, for example). I know that it's hard to implement for
> > the HTML writer (HTML sucks) but it could be solved if you provide
> > an eg. --basewidth option or similar.
> Fine with me, although I think it should do both ("50" implies pixels,
> "50%" is a percentage). Perhaps eventually it should even support
> units (e.g. "50em", "50px", "50mm", etc.) as has been requested
Seems like good ideas.
> Care to implement it?
Sorry, no. :-/ My TODO list is currently veeery long, and I want to avoid
adding items to it...
Adam Chodorowski <adam@...>
One who in a perilous emergency thinks with his legs.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"