Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Dov Feldstern wrote:
Why do I think that this question is related to "inset-ness"? Because
of the collapsible nature of most insets: collapsing an inset is
basically replacing the text in question with a black box of a known
type. (Again, math stands out, since it is not collapsible. And we're
going to see math standing out a lot. I think math is a special case,
where a major reason for having it as an inset is the fact that the
input method is so very different from "normal" text.) The fact that
we can set a certain type of inset to be non-collapsible is quite
beside the point: it's just another indication of the fact that
perhaps that type of inset need not be an inset at all...
I think you are mixing up the implementation point of View and the
Look&Feel point of View.
We can make whatever we like with inset. If we
decide that pressing [Delete] in from of a charstyle inset should not
delete the inset but "enter the inset and delete the first char" then
it's easy enough to implement. But this is look&feel.
Well, to a certain degree yes, I *am* mixing implementation and
look&feel: but only in the sense that I want the implementation which
matches the look&feel as well as possible, because I believe that that
will allow for much better support for future changes which may occur.
If the implementation behaves like the real thing, then changes in
behavior of the real thing will be easier to apply also to the internal
representation.
On the implementation point of view, charstyle as inset has *many* benefit:
- shorter code
- cleaner code
- generic code
I don't agree that any of these benefits is unique to "charstyle as
inset"; I'm not even sure that they *apply* at all to "charstyle as
inset". I think we're going to be making insets more complicated, by
making them perform double-duty; rather than adding another concept,
"ranges", which would deal well with ranges; and let insets deal well
with "true" insets.
2) Does the text in question "belong to" the proposed inset / markup?
If the attribute which the markup is supposed to endow were to be
deleted, should the contents be deleted as well? If the answer is that
"the contents belong to the markup, and should be deleted along with
it", then this is an inset. If the contents exists independently of
the markup, and should remain intact even if the markup is removed,
then this is *not* an inset.
It's the same as math really or graphics if you prefer. Those _are_
insets and belong to the text too. So that's not a valid point IMHO.
The entire contents of math or graphic belong to the text only as a
single black box. Delete the "formula-ness" of a formula, or the
"picture-ness" of the graphic, and it no longer makes sense to keep the
contents. But it *does* make sense to deleting the "emph-ness" of some
emphasized text, while leaving it's contents intact.
