On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 03:38:10PM +0200, Jakub Steiner wrote: > On Wed, 2007-08-15 at 10:30 +0200, Roman Joost wrote: > > > I thought about this a bit more and came to the conclusion, that using > > both worlds (jquery + lightbox) might be better to support a broader > > range. Depending on more than one libraries won't be a big problem for > > computers today. The scripts create a semi-transparent background layer, > > which sucks more on the computers perfomance than depending on more than > > one lib. > > > > The libraries we depend on will only be included in the pages with > > screenshots or images in general. The other pages won't load them > > anyways. > > Is imagebox really that horrible? ;) But yea, in the end it's a matter > of letting the one who's willing to do the dirty work to decide. I haven't looked at it carefully enough to elaborate a clean way of adding the scaling. I'm just afraid of hacking the scaling to this script and we will stuck with it, because migrating to newer versions of this script will become unmaintainable. > If you think you can unbreak the current state, I'm willing to depend on > both prototype and jquery on the screenshots and splash pages. We can > always revert to the current state that's not so nice to safari people. Alright - if I can find some more time I try to check the imagebox again ... Cheers, -- Roman Joost www: http://www.romanofski.de email: romanofski@xxxxxxxx
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
