On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Andre Poenitz wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:52:06PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote: > > 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 beg to differ. The patch makes some things possible that have not been > possible before. Moreover, that feature has been asked for several times. > The implementation is fairly good isolated, so it can be ripped off as > soon as we _have_ something better. [And no, I don't believe the core is > already "there"].
I'm saying there isn't far to go to get this to a much better state than it is now. Most of the work has been done already -- in this patch in fact -- just the last 10% to get rid of "free floating" optional arguement insets (and preferably section insets similar to many of the previous discussions). I just don't want the current patch in 1.3.0 -- the work should be finished before then otherwise there'll be some yucky conversions to handle. > > > 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. > > The proper solutions IMNSHO are proper insets (and possibly some > transition from 'paragraph styles' to 'inset styles' or something > close to that). But we are not there and I don't see coming that soon. That could well be necessary for a better bibitems replacement but let's not have free-floating optional arguements in 1.3.0. Allan. (ARRae)
