[Scribus] Text-Frame with 2 Columns?
Thu Apr 6 19:32:38 CEST 2006
Pierre-Luc Auclair a ?crit :
> On Thursday 06 April 2006 12:55, Louis Desjardins wrote:
>>Pierre-Luc Auclair a ?crit :
>>>It would rather have to go in a paragraph tab, we already lack settings
>>>that are only available via styles [that should go there].
>>I agree this confuses everybody!
>>Columns never come without a gutter. So 2 fields. Then we have the text
>>inset... Rethinking it over doesn't convince me this solution will give
>>the desired results. There will not be less confusion, imo.
> Although that's practically true, columns can come without gutter. ;) I don't
> really see the confusion as to multiple fields, to me this is necessary.
No! Sorry I was not clear enough. I mean moving the Column field from
the Shape tab to the Text tab like it is suggested. There is no point
doing that unless you carry at least the Gap field ... and then you have
to think about the Text inset field and what do you do with them! And
yes, I agree you can put a zero value in the Gab field. But that is not
the main discussion! :-)
>>Maybe you'll agree the name of the tab itself brings the first
>>confusion. How could "Shape" makes think about a text frame or an image
>>frame? Could it be dynamically replaced by "Text Frame" when on a text
>>frame, and "Image frame" when clicking on an image frame? Or simply
>>"Frame" instead of "Shape" ?
> I believe that it is semantically incorrect [to put it in Shape].
>>Also, the way Scribus works, and correct me if I'm wrong, the paragraph
>>style cannot accomodate columns or can it? My understanding is that
>>columns are "text frame" dependant and not "paragraph" or "text"
>>dependant. And how could we live with both worlds? What would take over
>>and in what circumstances?
> I believe that is correct. To me columns are a paragraph style and not frame
> settings (in a semantic point of view). It should be in paragraph, along with
> indentation and stuff like that.
> Complex paragraph behavior for semi-automatic type-setting, like I talked
> about with Avox and others on IRC a few weeks ago, could probably go in
> paragraph styles too, but behavior might want to and *should* probably be
> separated into another kind of style, Behavior style or something like that.
So this mean we could have text outside a text frame or at least control
the flow (including the number of columns and indents and all that's
paragraph related) independently than the text frame? This would be
something to dig in. I have never thought of it like that but why not?!
>>But I would gladly welcome a "frame" style (idea already on the bug
> To me a frame style is not the way to go (although I can definitely see the
> use for background color, outline color and stuff like that). To me the frame
> is a totally dissociated (semantically, again) element from text or
> paragraph. Also, this option lacks flexibility. For example you have 2 frame
> styles (only graphically) and 2 paragraphs styles, which can be mixed. If
> column formatting were into a frame style, you would need actually 4 frame
> styles to do the same.
Understand. But isn't that a very different way to handle text than it
is right now?
All this sounds interesting in theory. I would like to have a real-case
scenario to get the full taste of this approach.
> Scribus mailing list
> Scribus at nashi.altmuehlnet.de
T 514 934 1353
F 514 934 3698
More information about the scribus