Re: names of vertical spacing dimensions

[David Kastrup]

Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:

> On 10/13/10 8:29 AM, "David Kastrup" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> So my fear is that the new scheme is both strictly logical, and not
>>>> useful for specifying a coherent document layout.
>>> 
>>> But the new scheme is just a restatement (renaming) of the current
>>> scheme.
>> 
>> The renaming moves from a document design perspective (high level) to an
>> implementation one (low level).  The use of those variables, however, is
>> inside of the layout block which is supposed to be a document design
>> specification.
>> 
>> It also moves from an essentially one-dimensional parameter realm
>> "above-x, between-x, below-x, above-y, between-y, below-y" to a
>> two-dimensional matrix "between-x-x, between-x-y" ...
>> 
>> This does not make it feasible to introduce further layout components
>> for spacing since the parameter growth becomes quadratic.
>
> So you think it's better to have vague names for a fundamentally
> quadratic spacing scheme, instead of having names that reflect the
> quadratic nature of the scheme?
>
> I don't think I agree with this position.

Can we put the strawmen aside?

The point is that we want a sane way of specifying document layout
parameters.  The current naming scheme resembles that desire.  The
current code not.  Adapting the naming scheme to the deficiencies of the
code is going the wrong way in my opinion.

-- 
David Kastrup