Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 09:43:09 +0200
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
\textbf is simpler than \strong because
1. it is simply \textbf, and \strong can be anything, and to
understand what is \strong, someone needs to understand what is
charstyle, and where to look for its definition, and figure out, in
the end, that it is \textbf (in most cases).
Yes, but learning is good.
2. it is easier to toggle boldface. A simple operation (usually C-B)
can switch bold face on and off even for a sentense with mixed normal
and bold text. It is much more difficult to work with inset charstyle.
The 'backspace at the beginning of the inset' trick looks more like
magic.
This is a very good point, but unrelated to the bold issue. The people
who push for font as an inset should put their code where their mouth is
and make the interface usable (José?). For example we could have a
charstyle-toggle lfun that is like charstyle-insert except that, when
one tries to insert a charstyle in itself, it dissolves instead. I am
not sure it will be enough to make the thing work well, but it is a
major problem with the font change as inset idea.
Only, sometimes you wish to have a charstyle inset inside a charstyle
inset. So, should it test for being _the same_ charstyle type?
We have already a 'dissolve inset' menu entry. Inset _is_ a different
paradigm from font attribute. What's wrong with just learning it, just
like people learn not to do line spacing with the enter key.
I agree with that. Just let people choose what they want. Font attribute
should not become insets and people should not be forced to use
charstyle if they really want to use Font attribute.
Abdel.
