https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141161
--- Comment #5 from Telesto <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #4) > (In reply to Telesto from comment #3) > > However ... > > What is the added value of assumptions what would hypothetically > *developers* would find and/or think (any layout loop bugs are something to > fix, not to fear), You're are obviously right: layout bugs are something to be fixed and not to be feared. And yes, the added value of my remark low in quality.. It's more that this bug/ enhancement sounding "simple" to implement, but requiring quite a lot of expertise, experience, skill, stamina. [But yes, this doesn't need stating explicitly. And even if, I'm not qualified to do so...] I do ask myself should this be implemented independently. The current anchoring/wrap framework which 'feels' [subjective, based on few bugs) prone to errors c.q. working with Band-aids. So improving this likely will expose more pre-existing problems. > especially when paired with careless reading skipping the > bits specifically written in the issue description: > > > Of course, the proposed method (bindable to some keyboard modifier like > > Ctrl+Alt+Shift) should limit the movement of the object to disallow making > > the object and the anchor on different pages. Gotcha. However not only about moving the image, but you paragraphs/characters can move to, while editing. > > The "combo with cross paragraph text (say start paragraph on page 1, other > part on page 2)" is not "asking for problems", but a reasonable proposal > tracked in bug 89082; but it's unrelated to this one. Sorry.. I didn't intend to say that this wouldn't be a reasonable proposal. More that this case can cause issues in specific consternations today Anyhow: let's burry this as off-topic/noise. I will try to refrain from such comments in the future. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
