Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Then many things are already ugly, e.g. charstyles :) Storing a > spellchecker setting into a character or font is senseless, whereas > an inset is designed for functional purposes.
Well, calling "senseless" the method used by all other word processors is a bit weird. I am not saying that the fact that they use it means that there is no other way, though. > But clearly, appearance is _not_ the main needed functionality. I do not care about appearance either. > The real problem you mentioned may be that insets do not provide as > many display schemes as needed. New schemes would be useful for > other purposes as well, e.g. for charstyles; however that's not a > reason for putting charstyles properties into a font. charstyles have been introduced because of some shortcomings of our font system, in particular the fact that fonts did not nest correctly. They feel however as an afterthought, and my belief is that we have not found yet how to integrate them fully. > Moreover, I don't know if you very often need to mark as non > spellchecked more than one or two words (I mean outside e.g. a note)? > Not me, that's not very usual. I do not write my notes in SMS language either :) > Ok. As 3-box is a way to display insets, I thought that this could > have consequences on how it will be managed. No, the current work is more about making configurable a lot of things that used to be hardcoded. JMarc
