Mael Hilléreau wrote:
Le 17 août 07 à 10:36, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mael Hilléreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Le 16 août 07 à 23:41, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes a écrit :
This is possible already with my inset-based solution, so you can't
say that a char-based approach is needed for this. The only
difference I see is the possibility of having an underline. This is
just appearance and doesn't constitute a good reason IMO.
line breaking counts too.
We both know that this will be improved later.
Well, we have been talking about 3 box model forever. I'll believe it
when I see it :)
Perhaps you'll never see it if nobody believes it will be developed :) I
think it's not a good idea to let development go in wrong directions
just because everything cannot arise instantly.
Mael.
It's not just a matter of convenience --- I'm still not convinced that
insets are *conceptually* right in this case.
An inset conveys to me the following idea: I have the main text, and
then inside it is something which is a *break* from the normal flow. It
may be an integral part of the text, but it's still a break in some
*textual* sense. Notes, footnotes, equations --- in fact, nearly all of
the insets we currently have --- fit into this category.
I don't think that ignore-spellcheck fits into this model. It is not a
textual break --- it doesn't really have any textual significance. It's
more of a technical thing. I think this fits in better in a slightly
different concept, which is that of "marking off" regions of the text.
Can I clearly delineate when something should be an inset and when a
region? No. There are probably many gray areas, and whether a region or
an inset is preferred in these cases is mainly a matter of taste. But
I'll try anyhow to give some guidelines which make sense to me:
An inset is the right idea when everything inside of it --- without even
knowing what's going to be inside it --- should inherit whatever
property the inset is endowing. So for example, when I insert a Note,
then I'm saying that everything inside is not part of the text, it's
notes to the author. Even if I insert a footnote, or a graphic, or
whatever, these should all not be displayed. Or, if I insert an image in
a footnote, then I want that image to appear inside the footnote, not in
the main text.
A region should be preferred when that kind of guarantee can't be made.
For example, when I say that part of the text should be \emph, does that
mean that also a footnote from within that text should be \emph? I don't
think so.[*] Same with language: the fact that I switch languages within
a text does not mean that everything "within" this language will also be
of the same language.
Of course, one could implement virtually all these situations with
either only insets or only regions. But the fact is, there is a
conceptual difference between the two, and it makes sense to support
both concepts at the implementation level.
Getting back to spell-checker, IMO spell-checking belongs more to the
region concept than to the inset concept. Obviously, not everyone agrees
with this ;). But portraying things as if we're just trying to do what's
easiest, without thinking of the concepts, is not really fair...
Dov
[*] Actually, in this case in LyX we *do* currently make the text of the
footnote \emph. I think the rationale for doing this is one of user
experience: generally speaking, I think the user expects the font
attributes to remain as they are, until explicitly changed. However, in
this specific case, I imagine that users will usually switch off \emph
within the footnote.
