Re: Why are locking size and position treated as one?
I think your question wasn't answered because it could be taken as rhetorical. I've come across other properties that I thought ought to be on the pallette but were not. I suppose at some point, someone in a room somewhere who makes a lot more money than me has to decide that there will only be one checkbox. Now that you mention it, I think that is the answer to just about everything we encounter in the technological world that doesn't make sense to us at first, and upon further consideration, in a sudden epiphany, I believe at last I have the question to the answer to life the universe and everything! The question is... Which version of the universe is this? The answer of course, is 42. I thing we are on rev 3. They are still working some of the bugs out. Bob On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:35 AM, Mark Swindell wrote: I asked this a couple of days ago and got no response so I thought I'd try again. Why are locking size and position of an image inextricably linked? They seem to me to be two separate entities. I know how to get around the situation via script, but I don't know why there should be the inconvenience of having to get around anything. Is there a good reason for this or is it just a legacy reality that could be changed? Why not be able to drag an image around whose size is constrained? Mark___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Why are locking size and position treated as one?
Mark, very good question, I have no answer. You can fake your locks with script if you want to decouple them. Cheers andre On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Mark Swindell mdswind...@cruzio.com wrote: I asked this a couple of days ago and got no response so I thought I'd try again. Why are locking size and position of an image inextricably linked? They seem to me to be two separate entities. I know how to get around the situation via script, but I don't know why there should be the inconvenience of having to get around anything. Is there a good reason for this or is it just a legacy reality that could be changed? Why not be able to drag an image around whose size is constrained? Mark___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution -- http://www.andregarzia.com All We Do Is Code. ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Why are locking size and position treated as one?
On Feb 5, 2010, at 8:35 AM, Mark Swindell wrote: I asked this a couple of days ago and got no response so I thought I'd try again. Why are locking size and position of an image inextricably linked? They seem to me to be two separate entities. I know how to get around the situation via script, but I don't know why there should be the inconvenience of having to get around anything. Is there a good reason for this or is it just a legacy reality that could be changed? Why not be able to drag an image around whose size is constrained? Mark, There is a long-standing enhancement request on this: http://quality.runrev.com/qacenter/show_bug.cgi?id=2242 Regards, Devin Devin Asay Humanities Technology and Research Support Center Brigham Young University ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
Re: Why are locking size and position treated as one?
Thanks Devin. I gave it some votes and added a plea for a change. Looks like the report has languished since 2005, v. 2.5. Perhaps others can add to it. Mark On Feb 5, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Devin Asay wrote: On Feb 5, 2010, at 8:35 AM, Mark Swindell wrote: I asked this a couple of days ago and got no response so I thought I'd try again. Why are locking size and position of an image inextricably linked? They seem to me to be two separate entities. I know how to get around the situation via script, but I don't know why there should be the inconvenience of having to get around anything. Is there a good reason for this or is it just a legacy reality that could be changed? Why not be able to drag an image around whose size is constrained? Mark, There is a long-standing enhancement request on this: http://quality.runrev.com/qacenter/show_bug.cgi?id=2242 Regards, Devin Devin Asay Humanities Technology and Research Support Center Brigham Young University ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution ___ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
