Richard Heck wrote: > The difficulty is that, if you're already in the inset, you might be > wanting to apply another one. How do you distinguish that from changing > the inset type (which is the most natural thing).
Some thoughts: Say I have a charstyle <foo>hello world</foo>. * If I select "hello" and select "bar" from the combo, the result would be a nested construct "<foo><bar>hello</bar> world</foo>". * If I want to get rid of "foo", I select "hello world" and select "none" from the combo (which "dissolves" the inset) * If I select "hello" and chose "none", the result would be "hello<foo> world</foo>". * If I select "o wo" and select "none", the expected result would be "<foo>hell</foo>o wo<foo>rld</foo>". This might be tricky to implement, but it's needed. * I'm not sure yet what should happen if you select "hello world" and chose "bar". It might be expected to get <foo><bar>hello world</bar></foo>, and this should be possible. OTOH some people might expect (for some specific insets) that foo is replaced by "bar", i.e. "<bar>hello world</bar>". But in the end, they might to reset the inset first, or we define some "mutually exclusive" types of insets (the math color problem). Does this make sense? Jürgen
