Allow single link galleries

[LorenzCK]

When the gallery selector points to single <A> elements, the elements themselves are used as lightbox links instead of their <A> descendants.

Rationale

On pages with multiple stand-alone images, which are not part of a gallery and are not enclosed in a wrapping gallery tag, it can make sense for users to setup the lightbox individually for each link.

For instance, in:

<p>Page body.</p>
<p><a href="img.jpg" class="lightbox"><img src="img.jpg" /></a></p>
<p>More <a href="img.jpg" class="lightbox">images</a>.</p>

it can be difficult to enable the lightbox on both images. With the changes in this pull request, the <A> elements can be directly used to create single-image galleries:

baguetteBox.run('a.lightbox');

Nota bene

These changes make it impossible to create galleries enclosed by an <A> tag. For instance:

<a href="#" class="gallery">
<a href="img1.jpg"><img src="img1.jpg" /></a>
<a href="img2.jpg"><img src="img2.jpg" /></a>
</a>

In this case the .gallery selector couldn't be used anymore to setup a gallery. However, since enclosing a gallery in an anchor tag should be highly unlikely, these changes probably wouldn't impact any real existing code.

[XhmikosR]

Not bad, but I believe #81 will be more flexible.

[XhmikosR]

This needs formatting, brackets, spaces, etc.

Also, you shouldn't declare the var like that; it can be misleading. Better declare it outside and set its value then.

[LorenzCK]

@XhmikosR: #81 looks very promising. However, I would argue that this addition allows to create simple galleries without having to change the existing markup of the page (if you have no control over the markup or if you have a large number of pages that would need to be changed).
In fact I made this little change for a project I was working on, where I had large numbers of <a> tags embedded in too many pages to be edited quickly.

Fixed formatting and brackets as rightly noted in your previous comment.

[XhmikosR]

Missing space after if.

[XhmikosR]

I see both points, don't get me wrong. I believe a combination of both would be the best.

[XhmikosR]

Doesn't this conflict with #101?

[XhmikosR]

Ping @feimosi

[feimosi]

@XhmikosR it shouldn't conflict with each other, these are two different areas of the script, unless I don't notice something.

I think that's a good solution for now and with the v2.0 I'll make #81 possible,
@LorenzCK could you make a rebase before merging?

[feimosi]

Hi @LorenzCK, quite a little bit has changed in the codebase lately, could you take a look and rebase your branch?

[LorenzCK]

Hi @feimosi, sure! Will look into it by tomorrow. Thanks.

[LorenzCK]

@feimosi @XhmikosR The order here didn't look right to me, IMHO. I re-ordered the gallery declaration and moved the push call after the forEach below. Hope this is right.

[feimosi]

You're right, it's much cleaner this way 👍