Jaco de Groot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michiel Meeuwissen wrote: > >But %w in a file is also transformed to the image-width, and also when not > >using a file isn't it (at least according to my test)? So I don't see the > >difference. How could it break an existing site then? > > Hmm, I see. I thought %w wasn't transformed in the case of reading from > file. In that case I also think it is better to always write to file and > not to use the @mmbase syntax. :) > > We should note in the documentation that if you want to be save it is best > to escape % with %% (which seems to be the escape syntax for ImageMagick). > > >Perhaps not creating a file is a bit better for performance but I would > >prefer correctness, and simplicity, also because the penalty is very little > >because the result is cached in a icache object anyway. > > I agree.
Some abstains are harvested at the moment. How would one feel if the change involves always using an auxiliary file (as discussed by Jaco and me in this thread)? Btw, it would not be difficult to make this behaviour optional (with a setting in web.xml or so). Michiel -- Michiel Meeuwissen mihxil' Mediacentrum 140 H'sum [] () +31 (0)35 6772979 nl_NL eo_XX en_US
