Hi after some discussion on IRC I implemented variant a) because of the following reasons: - unproportional scaling is nearly never used by anyone - if it is used then just to for forcing an equal height on images where a few pixels distortion aren't visible - people don't need to learn any new syntax and it behaves more like one would expect (nobody expects image distortions) - implementing this variant is the simplest option ;-) > Mhm ... I think the last suggestion is the best one. So you can still > define the maximum area for the image and it will be scalled into > that. No. You never could do that (except in the gallery plugin which is a completely different case). When width and height were given it always scaled into that size. Width and height were not a boundary box. That's why nobody ever used it. > What if I want an image to have > a specific height? I can say: {{image?150}} for a specific width, but > {{image?x150}} for a spedific height and an automated scalling for > the width isnt possible atm - right, or did I miss a thing? correct. not possible. but isn't that much needed with the new cropping in place anymore. Andi -- splitbrain.org