On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 09:09:59AM +0200, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Martin Vermeer wrote: > > Actually I came to more or less the same view. > > > > So: > > > > - Noun should become an inset charstyle (lyx2lyx) > > - Strong should take a similar slot as Emph, i.e. > > a (non-inset) "font" attribute. > > > > But: > > > > - Code should be an inset charstyle. Something either > > is, or isn't, code. Objective meaning. > > > > Sounds like a plan? > > Could you tell me again why emph is different to noun?
The difference is that Noun is predefined. Carl Friedrich Gauss is a person's name, has always been, will always be, and if you choose to mark up person's names, you *have* to mark up CFG too. On the other hand you *may not* so mark up "The Prince of Mathematics". Predefined, objectively pre-existing meaning. True semantics if you like. On the other hand, emphasis is user-assigned and user-created meaning. E.g., in "non-euclidean geometry" you may emphasise non-euclidean, the whole phrase, or nothing, depending on what effect you are trying to achieve, what you want the reader to pay special attention to. And you may change your mind later on. Clear? This difference has relevance for the writing process. I don't like calling this a compromise proposal. "Compromise" means getting less than 100% of what you want, and that's not happening for me here. - Martin
