Posted by dorayme on 09/25/07 20:50

In article <pivhf3t85vlgj3fc4bnvu9jc8hnjniutbv@4ax.com>,
David Segall <david@address.invalid> wrote:

> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >In article <pd5le3ta9i5gdn374e4b4ns80kcnn16142@4ax.com>,
> > David Segall <david@address.invalid> wrote:

> >Well, I finally got around to having a play with jAlbum. It is
> >pretty impressive. I have asked a question about the following on
> >the jAlbum forums but perhaps I will mention it here to follow up
> >and also thank you for mentioning this software which works well
> >on my Mac.
> >
> >Have been experimenting on the minimal skin. I really would like
> >to be rid of the table layout

> I don't know enough to give you a definitive answer but I think you
> have hit the "roadblock" I mentioned in my post. I believe that JAlbum
> is based around a fairly rigid structure and although I'm sure you can
> get the look you want I doubt if you can specify the CSS and HTML that
> you want.

Fair enough. It is perhaps easier than I thought to post process.
I rejigged a produced index file to suit my taste yesterday and
it was not so hard. With a bunch of greps, it should be possible
to make the job more painless still.

One tactic that might help is to tell the program (there are
options for this, as you will know) to make just one row and as
many cols as there are pics in the table it insists on making.
Then it will be easier to fashion replacement patterns to fashion
it into a fluid floating div structure that I am a bit fond of at
the moment.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]