Why are locking size and position treated as one?

[Mark Swindell]

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 at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution