On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:05:55 -0400 John Kaufmann wrote: > In a message dated 2008.05.21 19:02 -0500, Michele wrote: > > >> ... How would one then set up, say, a 2-column block at the top of > >the> page and then later [on the same page] a 3-column block? > > > > To obtain the result above I would use a section, or a frame. With > > both sections and frames you can define the number of columns > > independently from the number of columns present in the page where > > they are inserted. The good thing of using frames is that you can > > create your very own frame style (a 3-column one in your case) and > > insert it when required. > > Excellent! *That* is the answer to my question: After all, when I > refer to a "3-column block" I could as easily say "3-column section" > or "3-column frame". In that sense, the columns definition *is* > intrinsic to the section or frame, whereas it is not to the page > (except insofar as a physical page corresponds to a logical section or > frame). Thanks! > > > I do not think that page styles should be used as layout tools, for > > that purpose a template is much more appropriate IMHO. > > Agreed, I think. A page (a physical entity) *does* have certain > inherent characteristics (like margins, header/footer, ...) which are > layout issues. > The content/data on the page - whether presented in columns, tables, > > paragraphs, or whatever, is not of that order. It seems that if we > don't keep those orders separate, OO will not be well positioned to > adapt the presentation of content to different media.
It could give us warm fuzzies to think that for those that want pages set just so - they can, and for those who want sections or frames set just so - they can as well. ;) -- Michael All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well - Julian of Norwich 1342 - 1416 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
