John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Advanced tabs are always a mistake.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216931
+1
But you have not been very successful wrt firefox :)
JMarc
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Advanced" tabs are always a mistake.
>
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216931
+1
But you have not been very successful wrt firefox :)
JMarc
Uwe Stöhr schrieb:
Question: Is it really desirable to change dialogs which each major
release? Why can't we get them right at the very first time?
In this case where the dialog now has 4 options, not 2 as before - Yes.
Good point :-)
In general, in my opinion, many dialogs should be
Uwe Stöhr schrieb:
> Question: Is it really desirable to change dialogs which each major
release? Why can't we get them > right at the very first time?
In this case where the dialog now has 4 options, not 2 as before - Yes.
Good point :-)
In general, in my opinion, many dialogs should be
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
- Why do the dialogs look fine on my system and not on yours?
didn't look at it closely, but i think that you put a lot of stuff in
hboxlayouts and then widgets won't always align nicely in a grid. to
achieve this best to position the widgets and them put them in a grid
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
So why not directly stating that
an optional parameter is optional?
I agree with Edwin here. We shouldn't do that. The fact that something can
be selected or not indicates clearly enough that it's optional.
Jürgen
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
- Why do the dialogs look fine on my system and not on yours?
didn't look at it closely, but i think that you put a lot of stuff in
hboxlayouts and then widgets won't always align nicely in a grid. to
achieve this best to position the widgets and them
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Thant's what I do. As result of the grid layout, I get some red borders
in the designer. In you layout I don't get them.
what you do, is you select some widgets and then layout in grid
i don't select any widgets, i just click on the base/parent widget and
then do layout in
Edwin Leuven schrieb:
- Why do the dialogs look fine on my system and not on yours?
didn't look at it closely, but i think that you put a lot of stuff in
hboxlayouts and then widgets won't always align nicely in a grid. to
achieve this best to position the widgets and them put them in a
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:38:27AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
it is obvious that if the user doesn't check those boxes the parameters
won't be set. and as i wrote, if we would do this we will deviate from
what we are doing in the rest of lyx.
Maybe Uwe thinks of them as Advanced
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
- Why do the dialogs look fine on my system and not on yours?
didn't look at it closely, but i think that you put a lot of stuff in
hboxlayouts and then widgets won't always align nicely in a grid. to
achieve this best to position the widgets and them put them in a grid
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> So why not directly stating that
> an optional parameter is optional?
I agree with Edwin here. We shouldn't do that. The fact that something can
be selected or not indicates clearly enough that it's optional.
Jürgen
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
- Why do the dialogs look fine on my system and not on yours?
didn't look at it closely, but i think that you put a lot of stuff in
hboxlayouts and then widgets won't always align nicely in a grid. to
achieve this best to position the widgets and them
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Thant's what I do. As result of the grid layout, I get some red borders
in the designer. In you layout I don't get them.
what you do, is you select some widgets and then layout in grid
i don't select any widgets, i just click on the base/parent widget and
then do layout in
Edwin Leuven schrieb:
- Why do the dialogs look fine on my system and not on yours?
didn't look at it closely, but i think that you put a lot of stuff in
hboxlayouts and then widgets won't always align nicely in a grid. to
achieve this best to position the widgets and them put them in a
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:38:27AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >it is obvious that if the user doesn't check those boxes the parameters
> >won't be set. and as i wrote, if we would do this we will deviate from
> >what we are doing in the rest of lyx.
>
> Maybe Uwe thinks of them as
Michael Gerz wrote:
Question: Is it really desirable to change dialogs which each major
release?
your question suggests that changing them is a goal in itself.
but yes, it is desirable to improve lyx's dialogs and make them more
uniform...
Why can't we get them right at the very first
http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/20727
Eh, what are you doing? You destroyed the complete dialog.
We discussed this before I committed this. Please revert! (Or I'll do.)
Uwe
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
Eh, what are you doing? You destroyed the complete dialog.
We discussed this before I committed this.
what is destroyed?
Please revert! (Or I'll do.)
the dialog layout was very messy, so please tell me what is wrong atm so that i
can address it...
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 12:31:32PM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/20727
Eh, what are you doing? You destroyed the complete dialog.
We discussed this before I committed this. Please revert! (Or I'll do.)
Uwe, you have to understand that when something works on
Leuven, E. schrieb:
what is destroyed?
Please revert! (Or I'll do.)
the dialog layout was very messy, so please tell me what is wrong atm so
that i can address it...
No, this is not the way it works! I implemented that we now use the wrapfig-package for wrap floats.
We can therefore
Uwe, you have to understand that when something works on windows
(or for you) it doesn't mean that it works everywhere (or for others).
The layout was broken on solaris (wrap-bad.png) and Edwin corrected
that (wrap-ok.png).
This is not what I meant. Edwin reverted the checkboxes and their
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
No, this is not the way it works! I implemented that we now use the
wrapfig-package for wrap floats. We can therefore provide two new
parameters. These are optional and after a discussion on the list
(see the one about my Box-patch some days ago) and in bug 3242 I
implemented
Edwin Leuven schrieb:
the behavior of the dialog hasn't changed. the overhang and linespan are
still optional. if they are not checked they are not passed on. i didn't
touch this part of the code.
if you think that changing a label (ie removing the optional) changes
the behavior of the
Hello Edwin,
I was really talking bullshit yesterday. I need to test things out properly the next time before
raising my voice. I was angry because nothing was working after I updated SVN. In the end your
cleanup was absolutely correct and my further Ui-changes I had im my tree were pointing
Michael Gerz wrote:
Question: Is it really desirable to change dialogs which each major
release?
your question suggests that changing them is a goal in itself.
but yes, it is desirable to improve lyx's dialogs and make them more
uniform...
Why can't we get them right at the very first
> http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/20727
Eh, what are you doing? You destroyed the complete dialog.
We discussed this before I committed this. Please revert! (Or I'll do.)
Uwe
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Eh, what are you doing? You destroyed the complete dialog.
> We discussed this before I committed this.
what is destroyed?
> Please revert! (Or I'll do.)
the dialog layout was very messy, so please tell me what is wrong atm so that i
can address it...
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 12:31:32PM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> > http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/20727
>
> Eh, what are you doing? You destroyed the complete dialog.
> We discussed this before I committed this. Please revert! (Or I'll do.)
Uwe, you have to understand that when something works
Leuven, E. schrieb:
what is destroyed?
> Please revert! (Or I'll do.)
the dialog layout was very messy, so please tell me what is wrong atm so
that i can address it...
No, this is not the way it works! I implemented that we now use the wrapfig-package for wrap floats.
We can therefore
> Uwe, you have to understand that when something works on windows
> (or for you) it doesn't mean that it works everywhere (or for others).
> The layout was broken on solaris (wrap-bad.png) and Edwin corrected
> that (wrap-ok.png).
This is not what I meant. Edwin reverted the checkboxes and
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
No, this is not the way it works! I implemented that we now use the
wrapfig-package for wrap floats. We can therefore provide two new
parameters. These are optional and after a discussion on the list
(see the one about my Box-patch some days ago) and in bug 3242 I
implemented
Edwin Leuven schrieb:
the behavior of the dialog hasn't changed. the overhang and linespan are
still optional. if they are not checked they are not passed on. i didn't
touch this part of the code.
if you think that changing a label (ie removing the "optional") changes
the behavior of the
Hello Edwin,
I was really talking bullshit yesterday. I need to test things out properly the next time before
raising my voice. I was angry because nothing was working after I updated SVN. In the end your
cleanup was absolutely correct and my further Ui-changes I had im my tree were pointing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Author: uwestoehr
Date: Wed Oct 3 11:56:28 2007
New Revision: 20690
URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/20690
Log:
WrapUi.ui: better dialog layout
This seems to be the n-th dialog whose layout changed for the 1.6
series. There were also a couple of dialogs
Question: Is it really desirable to change dialogs which each major release? Why can't we get
them right at the very first time?
In this case where the dialog now has 4 options, not 2 as before - Yes.
In general, in my opinion, many dialogs should be revised. Take for example the
table
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Author: uwestoehr
Date: Wed Oct 3 11:56:28 2007
New Revision: 20690
URL: http://www.lyx.org/trac/changeset/20690
Log:
WrapUi.ui: better dialog layout
This seems to be the n-th dialog whose layout changed for the 1.6
series. There were also a couple of dialogs
> Question: Is it really desirable to change dialogs which each major release? Why can't we get
them > right at the very first time?
In this case where the dialog now has 4 options, not 2 as before - Yes.
In general, in my opinion, many dialogs should be revised. Take for example the
table
38 matches
Mail list logo
