On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Uwe Stöhr <uwesto...@web.de> wrote:
> Am 14.08.2011 18:35, schrieb Vincent van Ravesteijn: > > > I don't think this is confusing. >> > > It confuses at least me because selecting the inset is what it does _not_. > It was specially designed to select its content. Every selection, selects contents, so this is not self-explanatory to me. Besides, this menu item does not indicate of which inset the contents is selected, so IMHO the word "contents" is not necessary. > For example, the \printnomenclature inset can be selected, while > "inset-select-all" won't do anything with this inset. First of all, you can't get into a printnomenclature inset to even call inset-select-all, so this is not the best example. > So we would promise a feature that the menu does not provide and which is > also not its aim. > I like to have the menu names as close as possible to what they are for to > keep a certain level of self-explanation. > Me too, that's why I don't like "Select contents of inset", because it has no reference to "all" or "whole", while this is so closely related to "Select all". If "Select Whole Inset" would mean to select the inset itself, why is the word "Whole" then added ? Can you select only half of the Inset ? Actually, you can, but that would mean to select half of the contents. So, "Whole" indicates .. the whole contents. I will not fight over this, I'm just trying to figure out the most applicable name. Vincent
