What about having some kind of thumbnail that is small and when clicked expands to a larger size in another browser window. Maybe with jQuery? I think it is important that the user doesn't have to upload images to add them but can use a URL to point to the image.
However, I don't view this functionality as critical for our first release. If it is broken with the current release of textile, then I don't have a problem with that. Maybe someone can add a CR to the textile team that adds the possibility to turn off embedded image tags if desired. D. On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:47 AM, David Pollak <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > It's simple to resolve. images can be excluded from the Textile markup >> (I >> > can't remember how off hand, but there's a flag to pass to the textile >> > processor). >> >> Oh, it is already "resolved", meaning that image urls cannot be >> parsed. It's "broken" like that because ESME's MsgParser sees the url >> first and transforms it to <a href=...>, which the TextileParser >> (which is invoked afterwards) cannot parse as an image anymore. The >> issue is that someone wanted this feature and filed a report to "fix" >> it. And I think I'm happy with the current situation where images >> don't work. >> >> So does that mean that you're also against free embedding of images in >> messages? >> > > I'm neutral on the issue. > > > > -- > Lift, the simply functional web framework http://liftweb.net > Beginning Scala http://www.apress.com/book/view/1430219890 > Follow me: http://twitter.com/dpp > Surf the harmonics >
