On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 01:57:36PM +0000, John Levon wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:51:23PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > This is a problem inherent to structured editing.
> >
> > \foo{xxx\normal{nnn}xxx} _is_ different from \foo{xxx}nnn\foo{xxx}.
>
> That depends upon the surrounding context. I do not see a difference
> between:
>
> \normal{\foo{xxx\normal{nnn}xxx}}
>
> and
>
> \normal{\foo{xxx}nnn\foo{xxx}}
Let \foo be \small and you will see a difference.
> But, nonetheless, a non-inset-based UI can still handle both via a
> "Reset" or "Default" option.
And all-boxes has 'split boxes' and 'insert new box'. Two options as
well.
> > I'd consider 'splitting' as part of a proper UI. In fact, I seem to
> > remember this was one of your arguments against fonts-as-insets in
> > mathed some time ago.
>
> Yes. But currently we have insets visible in the UI. What we should have
> is simple: select some text, choose an LCS to apply to it (perhaps
> "Reset") and there you are, you're done. Edit->Text_Style->Emphasis
> on the selection.
>
> How would this work with the current inset approach ?
Cut, create new \emph inset, go there, paste. Pretty much what C-b does
for 'mathbf in mathed.
> The UI should be just like users can currently set text colour or size
> now, except with LCS instead.
>
> (Please note I am not talking about *implementation* at all here, only
> the presented UI).
I understand that. However, if UI is close to implementation it is more
likely to be consistent as some artificially attached MS Word like UI.
Understanding the all-boxes concept is not too hard, especially as long
LyX documentation brags with 'structure based document editor' (or
some similar marketing hogwash).
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have,
nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
