Le 2 oct. 07 à 17:01, Bo Peng a écrit :
Because these are fundamentally different concepts (I keep
repeating myself).
I do not think \textit and \em are 'fundamentally different'.
\textit/\em and CharStyle Emph are. The former are all 'plain latex
command', the latter can be any latex command. This is obviously
different from what JMarc thinks
\em is a command that nobody is supposed to use since 1994.
The fact that a macro is defined by latex or a textclass or LyX is
not really releavant for the discussion. Do you really make a
difference between Layouts that are common to all classes, or
specific to a textclass? Shold they be in a different GUI?
<quote> But there are two different things:
* semantic vs explicit marking
* font-like extent versus inset.
The first one is the one that counts. The second one is an
implementation issue.
</quote>
From a user's point of view, the former is mapped to some latex
command that is NOT configurable.
Everything is configurqble. Use the package ulem and voila! emph is
underline (as required by some psychology journals)
The later is some complicated inset
that provides flexibility at a cost of usability. It would be more
naturally to put \textbf along with \em, than to put \strong (leads to
a scary inset) along with \em (which simply makes your text italic).
The later leads to a macro i nthe .tex code, like the others. You are
mixing interface and semantics.
You tried really hard to differentiate \textit and \em and tried to
convince me your toolbar buttons are *not* italics and underline in
word's sense. My view is different. See above.
They are different, that's life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emphasis_(typography)
Do you think that a section is exactly the same as a text in larger
boldface?
JMarc
