On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 07:15:18PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 06:52:48PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:20:43AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > > Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > > Within text the <space> syndrome won't be as evident because you > > > > generally only have one depth and not multiple level like in mathed. > > > > > > Why do we need to nest insets then ? :-P > > > > > > JMarc > > > > Actually I don't think we should (usually). In text, cases where we > > want to nest (charstyle) insets ought to be rare, if we have defined > > them as sensible semantic units. Over-use of nesting is a sign that > > we maybe haven't. > > One use case I can think of is a linguist wanting to mark individual > parts of a sentence. Certain words can be part of several such entities, > so overlapping might make sense there, and also the "artificial > splitting workaround" of the pure inset approach might not be really > feasible.
Yes, I agree. That would be the TEI use case. - Martin
