[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [New search]

RE: Figure numbering out of sequence with floating anchored frame s


You can't have it both ways. Either you are using floating frames & floating 
tables, in which case we agree, or you aren't, in which case the trouble with 
non-floating tables and frames is that they don't float. This proposition is a 
logical tautology. Calling it "absolutely wrong" is merely absurd.

> There is no way to "lose" the Float function for a table, because there is no 
> thing as an Anchoring Position of At Insertion Point for tables.

Now *this* is absolutely wrong. There are five ways to lose the float function 
for a table, and one way to float it. You are very confused on this point. 
'Flow' is what text does; 'float' is what frames & tables *can do* if enabled, 
otherwise they flow too. Tables float if and only if their Start: is set to 
Float; anchored frames float if and only if the Floating checkbox is visible 
and selected.

Turning 'Float' off is your privilege, but most of us would consider that empty 
bottoms of pages are at least as bad a spacing problem as what you're trying to 
fix, and fixing *that* lands you with your convoluted 
3-steps-per-affected-frame cut&paste post-process. Taken together, they 
strongly suggest that you're on the wrong track. Wasted page depth is a problem 
in itself; having to do automatic processes manually to fix it is another 

There is no perfect solution. Otherwise we'd all be using it and there would be 
no discussion. Obviously we will have our own preferences and priorities among 
the various imperfect solutions which exist.


[Personally what I'd like would be a setting that would place floated frames & 
tables vertically centred in, rather than at the top of, the next column they 
fit in, and a better solution to the where-to-anchor problem.]

** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@omsys.com **
** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.   **