Angus Leeming wrote: > Most important comment is that all these solutions are temporary hacks > if the ultimate goal is "an inset is three boxes". IOW, I don't think > we should be toooo worried about which ever choice is implemented.
Is not clear to me if this is the general consensus. I may be wrong, but I think that some of the people here prefer to have minipages as square insets somehwat showing it's %col size. Maybe it would be confortable to have floats not mixed with the text for instance. But it would be about a good time to decide it :-) > Second most important point is that --- as always --- the person > putting the effort into coding this up is the one who has the freedom > to choose. More or less... it may be true in the short time, but if the person coding doesn't find a consensus he may risk to have his code overhauled in the long time and his effort wasted... :-) > Third point is a suggestion. Why not go from this: > <---- s ---------> > blah blah blah blah [open inset] blah. > <--------------- w ------------------> > > to this: > <---- s ---------> > blah blah blah blah [open inset] > +------------------------------------+ > | | > | | > +------------------------------------+ > blah. > > ? 1) I like it. 2) I may be wrong, but it doesn't seem easy to do with the current scheme (because of the non-squared shaped insets). I will try to play a bit with it. 3) It may also be that the generalization needed to hold this thingy is a first step to the 3boxes thing. > FWIW, I also don't like special casing and the fact that latex doesn't > special case the indentation is important IMO. I think also the same. Alfredo
