I understand what happens to most feature requests, but this one--I hope--should be fairly easy.

Currently, you must specify the maximum size for images as WxH. Those of us with rectangular screens can select either of two choices for the proportions, essentially choosing in advance whether to view the document in landscape or portrait mode.

However, many documents have images that are a mixture of landscape and portrait formats, and it may be desirable to render them as large as possible on the screen, even if that means switching the PDA back and forth between orientations.

My proposal: Add a checkbox in the image formatting area, labeled "WxH". The default would be for this box to be checked and the software would behave as it does now. When the box is unchecked, the specified dimensions would be taken as WxH or HxW, whichever gives the larger image, on an image by image basis as they are being processed.

If that can't be done, here's one you can't refuse: Please label the H and W boxes. I never remember which is which. And I'm betting I have it wrong in the above discussion.

Will look into this. You probably mean you have a non-rectangular screen, i.e. one that can be viewed in landscape or portrait.

Will look into this. You probably mean you have a non-rectangular screen, i.e. one that can be viewed in landscape or portrait.

Thanks for considering it.

I have a Palm TX, which I would consider a rectangular screen, as opposed to my old TE, which had what I would call a square screen. Whatever the proper term is, I think you understand what I'm after.

Sorry, yeah, I was confused with the non-square screen.

I just did a trial run with a few documents on the Palm Simulator to get a feel for this and I ended up switching too much between orientations to see the images in their entirety. In practice this option is not really useful, I think, so I won't implement it.

The best way to address this is to have image scaling capability in the Plucker viewer.

In practice this option is not really useful, I think, so I won't implement it.

It's your call, of course, but I must disagree. And, again, thanks for looking into it.

In any case, I would ask you then to go to my "plan B" and label the height and width fields.