Martin Vermeer wrote: >> * If I want to get rid of "foo", I select "hello world" and select "none" >> from the combo (which "dissolves" the inset) > > No need to select... just be inside the inset to be dissolved.
I disagree. The users shouldn't bother whether they are inside an 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. > > Don't think so. If you want this, use dissolve-select-foo-select-foo. > (IOW you shouldn't have created the original charstyle in the first > place. Second time around you'll be wiser :) I think this is too complicated and non-intuitive. >> * 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). > > Depends on how big the selection is, does it include <foo> ... </foo>. > The nice thing with an inset is that _this case_ is never ambiguous. > >> Does this make sense? > > I understand it (I think), but disagree. This is not semantic mark-up. > "None" is not a semantic thing and we shouldn't pretend it is. Why? It's "no markup here, please". > - Martin
