Why are locking size and position treated as one?

[Bob Sneidar]

I think your question wasn't answered because it could be taken as rhetorical. I've come across other properties that I thought ought to be on the pallette but were not. I suppose at some point, someone in a room somewhere who makes a lot more money than me has to decide that there will only be one checkbox. 

Now that you mention it, I think that is the answer to just about everything we encounter in the technological world that doesn't make sense to us at first, and upon further consideration, in a sudden epiphany, I believe at last I have the question to the answer to life the universe and everything! The question is...

Which version of the universe is this? The answer of course, is 42. I thing we are on rev 3. They are still working some of the bugs out. 

Bob


On Feb 5, 2010, at 7:35 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_______________________________________________
> 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