On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Martin Vermeer wrote: > I looked at this, and it seems very, very difficult. (And it wouldn't be > paradigmatically correct to have a 'free floating' inset containing > stuff that nevertheless belongs as a label to the left of the bibitem. > With the optional LaTeX parameter it works because it doesn't actually > 'exist', WYSIWYG wise.)
I'll just say this once more: your optional parameter/s belong at the start of the paragraph (or start of an inset when this is supported) as part of the label/counter if one exists and shouldn't be free floating. People want to quibble about things like HasOption etc. but while these changes are important I see a much bigger problem with "free floating" optional parameters. From a UI point of view a short title should be at one end or the other of a title; multiple optional parameters should be collected together not scattered throughout a paragraph; it seems that most things that have optional arguements tend to have some sort of label or counter associated with them which would provide a consistent location for accessing these optional arguements -- it would also mean that users wouldn't need to (or be able to) insert these insets anywhere because they would already exist in the document. Nearly everything that's needed for a better system is in place already with this work but I'd rather see this patch committed to a branch (so it won't be lost) and then extended to a better overall UI than risk this incomplete work slipping through into a production 1.3.0. > I believe I can simplify bibitem a little, though. Finish this work and I think you'll find that bibitems could be incorporated into an improved implementation. Allan. (ARRae)
