On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 10:44:11PM +0200, Martin Vermeer wrote: > > But since this is really only a halfway > > house to what we really want, that might not be suitable. > > What *do* we/you really want?
Well as outlined and discussed some months ago. > > slightly weird to have some completely different UI for handling logical > > styles from physical settings, as we have currently. > > Hmmm perhaps. Did I point out already that I don't really like physical > character attributes? :-) They shouldn't exist at all, but that has some other implications. > I can see your problem though. Having insets is a quite different > paradigm, but is conceptually cleaner and more practical to implement. > IMHO. This is why we have the half-way house :) > An essential difference is that a char attribute can be applied or > unapplied. An inset can only be inserted (i.e., "applied" after > selecting the text to be contained in it.) Exactly ... this is just one of the many problems with a box-based approach visible in the UI (as opposed to a purely internal box paradigm) > Of course code for deleting or "unapplying" an inset (e.g., backspace > in pos 0, like in math) could be created as well. But what you will > never be able to do in this paradigm is "unapplying" a charstyle for a > piece in the middle of an applied charstyle, as you can do with > physical attributes -- or more generally, creating arbitrary bit > patterns of attributes. (But then I would argue "why would you want > to?") Well, I'm sure I could construct a valid use case. regards john -- Khendon's Law: If the same point is made twice by the same person, the thread is over.
