X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/bb94da88c4db4e3942794e789c28145b5d27fd85..3989b04772f925298aecf83eed10a3bcd6b5c112:/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn?ds=sidebyside diff --git a/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn b/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn index 442d02df0..a60de0b2a 100644 --- a/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn +++ b/doc/plugins/contrib/album/discussion.mdwn @@ -628,8 +628,14 @@ I've changed the behavior of the "slideshow" to show the next image when clickin My wishlist for the plugin would include: -- Reading exif info from the imagefile -- ~~Keeping the full resolution image files out of version control~~ Solved this by simply creating a underlay for the images. Works out of the box for my non cgi workflow. +[[!template id=gitbranch branch=kjs/album6-imgmeta author="[[Kalle Söderman|kjs]]"]] + +- ~~Reading exif info from the imagefile~~ + - I have now implemented this (in some fashion) and the patch is available in my album6-imgmeta branch. --kjs + +- ~~Keeping the full resolution image files out of version control~~ Solved +this by simply creating a underlay for the images. Works out of the box for my +non cgi workflow. - Being able to create new albums by tag or by manually picking images from other albums. Could be a simple comma separated list of viewer names, or even full urls, in the album directive. - A counter showing **current image/total number of images in album**. This would mean that you know how many images you have left to click through before you have seen all images in an album. This gives you enought info to decide weather to click through or go back/leave. @@ -843,6 +849,13 @@ images as small as the ones you used. You might find or the same techniques, useful: it contains images with a realistic pixel count, but very very lossy JPEG compression, to keep the size in bytes low. +> I have now created a large (images) example, you can find all the examples +> here [1]. I have also built all the examples with the album5 branch, you can +> find the results here [2]. +> +> 1: +> 2: + It's much, much easier to review changes if you use separate commits for cosmetic changes like "separate index CSS from viewer CSS" and "more consistent indentation", and functional changes like turning the prev/next @@ -850,6 +863,10 @@ links from absolutely-positioned to floating. I'd be happy to apply the cosmetic changes if they were in commits that were literally only cosmetic changes, with no functional effect. +> I have now rewritten the CSS changes to get a smaller diff. The only big +> functional change is from the previous patch is the max-width stuff to cope +> better with large images. + For the functional bits: I think I'd have used floating boxes instead of the absolutely-positioned boxes that are currently used if they provided the effect I wanted. I can't remember exactly why I didn't do that now, but @@ -863,3 +880,16 @@ branch, could you please explain it, and perhaps we can come up with something that matches both our requirements? --smcv + +> I don't think that something specific is wrong with CSS in the album5 branch, +> but it does not display large [3], or small [4] images very well. It might be +> possible to resolve the image size issues without changing from absolute +> positioning, but I felt (for no particular reason) that I would do it using +> floats. +> +> The clickable region on the margin seems the most likely reason to me to go +> with absolute positioning, as an initial look at doing this with floats +> suggests that it is non-trivial. +> +> 3: +> 4: