> No user wants to hear about DRY. Users like another Ruby tenant... > "it does what you would expect." They expect that if they're editing > a page, they can add an image from that page. (Of course, they also > expect WYSIWYG, and that the image will be automatically resized and > appear in the editor...)
For another usecase showing why I want (well, need) images attached to pages, have a look at http://www.thegroggysquirrel.com - You'll see on the front page and image linked to each article - I can do that just from grabbing the first image associated with that page (which in many cases isn't actually displayed in that page, it's just that it's been attached). The same thing can be seen at http://www.thegroggysquirrel.com/comics - the page at /comics doesn't need to know anything other than the fact that it has some child pages and it can happily pull down the images associated with each of the pages and render them. This could probably be achieved instead by choosing one image from the list of images for rendering (in fact, I provide an option on the page to select an image to be associated if there are multiple images), but it's been much more straightforward for the (not so computer savvy) editors to simply upload their article, upload an associated image at the same time and be done with it. Especially when I've currently got 826 attachments that would be living in that bucket to choose from - giant buckets don't scale. Dan. _______________________________________________ Radiant mailing list Post: Radiant@lists.radiantcms.org Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/ Site: http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant
