Could you add this to the bug ? All pretty interesting btw. -- Matthew
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 16:18 -0300, Andre Henrique Campos wrote: > On 8/10/07, Matthew Allum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 8/9/07, Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > not at the moment, but it's a feature planned for 0.6. > > > > > > > Yep, also see http://bugzilla.o-hand.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444 . Any > > input on how the API should appreciated. > > > My suggestion about relative units is to implement something similar > to the described in The Kaa's Project [1], ie: > > Object.width - integer or string: A value representing the width of > the object. Width can be a fixed (integer) size (in pixels), or a > relative (percentage) size. Percentage values (e.g. "75%") are > relative to the object's container. Width may also be auto, which > means that the width is the object's natural width (such as, for > example, an image's native width). e.g. 100, or "50%". Default: auto. > Methods: set_width, get_width, resize. > > And the main feature for me: > > Image.aspect - preserve, ignore or floating point value: Controls the > behavior of resizing. If preserve, either the image's width or its > height can be specified, and the other dimension will be automatically > computed from the image's original aspect ratio. If ignore, the both > the width and height properties are used in determining the image's > size. If a floating point value is given, behaves as preserve except > instead of using the image's native aspect ratio, it uses the one > specified. Default: preserve. Methods: set_aspect, get_aspect > > What's your opinion about? > > [1] http://projects.sault.org/mebox/canvas/ > > Cheers, > André -- To unsubscribe send a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
