upm_img_popper

Mary · 2005-05-28 22:34:41

What do you mean?

sekhu · 2005-05-28 23:10:27

sorry I just meant, are these new changes going to make any difference to the way images are handled at present – as in are the default settings for img attributes, and so on going to remain or will the user be required to specifiy this with one of these new options?

Mary · 2005-05-28 23:26:03

Oh okay. There should be no difference to the end user if they are not making use of the custom feature.

What I’m doing is dropping “custom” as a type, and allowing full (but optional) customization via some tags and a form, rather than just allowing you to hand it your own JavaScript function.

The other four types (image, article, thumb, or popup) remain the same, with the same optional id, class, etc

I’m trying to find a nice balance of easy to use, and easy to customize.

You may decide to make use of this custom function, once you see how it works – once setup, transparent to the user, but a LOT more possibilities.

And of course, if I make a release and everyone says “hey you made it crap!”, then I’d try and make it much better.

I’m going to do a few more checks, then release it a few minutes – my own small testing isn’t likely to find all the bugs.

theturninggate · 2005-05-29 04:53:05

Another option for setting the thing up would be to create an entry for the plugin in the “Extensions” tab and allow the user to set various attributes there.

rajo · 2005-05-29 22:17:37

Would it be possiblt to add the ability to have automatic insertion into the custom fields of a post?

Mary · 2005-05-29 22:36:00

I’d have to say no: there are up to 10 custom fields (and maybe one day they’ll be unlimited); there is isn’t a way to do it that wouldn’t bloat the plugin, which I’m trying to keep as concise as possible. Depending on the usage, that’s really suited to another plugin.

Mary · 2005-05-29 22:52:34

v.0.4 is here.

sekhu · 2005-05-29 23:32:36

thanks for the update mary – look forward to trying it out

starzabove · 2005-05-30 02:51:13

I wrote:
“The normal textile fashion… doesn’t appear to work.”
mary wrote back:
It wouldn’t, as Textile doesn’t play nice with tags, and image urls in Textile are a bit different.
I wrote:
“is there a way to make an image a link with textile”
mary wrote:
Not currently. I’ll try and work that into the next release.

Thanks so much!
I noticed the option for url=”“ in v.0.4, but it’s not working for me – I should just put url=“http://www.theurl.com” within the tag, right?

I’ve tried both this:
<code><txp:upm_image type=“thumb” image_id=“12” url=”/Diana” /></code>
and this:
<code><txp:upm_img_thumb_url image_id=“12” url=”/Diana” /></code>

Thanks for all of your awesome work and your patience!

Last edited by starzabove (2005-05-30 02:58:34)

Mary · 2005-05-30 03:01:48

Yeah, just like (an example from one test link I used):
<txp:upm_image type="image" image_id="2" class="" url="http://yahoo.com/" />

I did bug testing of course, but you can never catch them all that way. Does anything get output, either garbelled mess or an error, or nothing at all, or just an image but no url?

It won’t work for “popup” if that happens to be what you’re trying — popup is for automatically creating a thumbnail of your picture linked to a popup of the full-size.

starzabove · 2005-05-30 03:33:25

It does seem to work for type=“thumb” either. Here is what I tried that WORKED:
<code><txp:upm_image type=“image” image_id=“12” class=”“ url=”/Diana” /></code>

and this is what DIDN’T WORK:
<code><txp:upm_image type=“thumb” image_id=“12” class=”“ url=”/Diana” /></code>

Thanks again and again!

Mary · 2005-05-31 14:30:26

Whoops. Definite bug. Fixed.

theturninggate · 2005-06-01 20:54:33

Mary, I’m loving this plugin, but it’s still completely useless to me because it hardcodes the “height=” and “width=” attributes into the XHTML of each image.

Would it be possible to either remove these attributes from the output, or to include another check box that allows you to toggle their inclusion? I can’t even begin to tell you how much easier this would make life for myself and several of my clients!

tinyfly · 2005-06-01 21:08:50

I wouldn’t want it removed totally, but a check box might be nice.

Mary · 2005-06-01 21:48:35

Yeah, I could have them checkbox-ed like alt and title, but checked by default. Is that acceptable?

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#91 2005-05-28 22:34:41

Re: upm_img_popper

#92 2005-05-28 23:10:27

Re: upm_img_popper

#93 2005-05-28 23:26:03

Re: upm_img_popper

#94 2005-05-29 04:53:05

Re: upm_img_popper

#95 2005-05-29 22:17:37

Re: upm_img_popper

#96 2005-05-29 22:36:00

Re: upm_img_popper

#97 2005-05-29 22:52:34

Re: upm_img_popper

#98 2005-05-29 23:32:36

Re: upm_img_popper

#99 2005-05-30 02:51:13

Re: upm_img_popper

#100 2005-05-30 03:01:48

Re: upm_img_popper

#101 2005-05-30 03:33:25

Re: upm_img_popper

#102 2005-05-31 14:30:26

Re: upm_img_popper

#103 2005-06-01 20:54:33

Re: upm_img_popper

#104 2005-06-01 21:08:50

Re: upm_img_popper

#105 2005-06-01 21:48:35

Re: upm_img_popper

Board footer