On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 01:39:40AM +0200, Dov Feldstern wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 11:13:34PM +0200, Dov Feldstern wrote:
>>>
>>> Martin Vermeer wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 15:49:22 +0100
>>>> Abdelrazak Younes
>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>>>>>> Martin Vermeer
>>>>>> <martin.vermeer-RGpGn/[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I am not sure I understand. Why is forceLTR true for ERT? Just
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> display purpose?
>>> The truth is, it shouldn't be. We're overloading the usage of forceLTR
>>> --- a slight misunderstanding between me and Martin. I actually suggested
>>> having *two* separate options in the layout: "forceLTR" and "Language".
>> I think that was _my_ original idea... or then I missed your proposal. I
>> dropped it thinking that you only wanted forceLRT, and that that was
>> a good idea ;-)
>
> Hmmm... let's start this over again:
>
> Normally, if within an RTL paragraph we insert an inset whose contents are
> LTR, then the language/direction will be switched *inside* the inset; this
> is taken care of automatically by the inset itself. However, there are some
> situations in which we won't be able to switch the language/direction once
> we're inside the inset --- for example, inside a \url, where any language
> switch commands would just be output verbatim.
Well, the inset could also write out stuff before and after the
\url{..}, right?
[I don't really know what the discussion is about, so ignore if not
appropriate...]
Andre'
