On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 12:32, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>>> "Angus" == Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Angus> Martin Vermeer wrote: > >> Currently however, both the toolbar buttons and the keystroke C-e > >> at least, still produce font-noun and font-emph attribute-type > >> charstyles. Should we, for 1.4.0, switch to inset-type character > >> styles for this, and make it the preferred way, marking the text > >> attribute types noun and emph as deprecated? > > Angus> My take: if the new way works, then use it. What's the point of > Angus> writing it otherwise? > > Well, my take is completely different :) I think we should get rid of > the Noun charstyle in std latex classes, and only keep charstyles for > *ML, where that are really needed.
Well, that has the merit of consistency... and it is easy to do. But we should do *something*. Are you aware BTW that in math, Noun is used to produce blackboard bold and Emph to produce Calligraphic? I don't think we should be using such trickery. > Do you _really_ think that ``normal'' LaTeX users will thing that > having the name of the style written under every emphasized word is an > improvement? As they are I think they really hamper the reading of the > document on screen. They are distractiing and take a _lot_ of screen > estate to convey an information (emphasize, noun) which is not really > needed, since people see on screen what the style is. Yes... _because_ they are hardwired to textit and textsc. Physical mark-up. In that case let's be brutally honest and talk only about 'italic' and 'small caps'. There is a half-finished infrastructure for logical mark-up in lyxfont, which is not being used and apparently not usable / user configurable. > Of course, this > is not true for a style like "First Name", but this is not what we are > doing here. OK, agreed. > Note that this does not prevent people from defining their own > charstyles in their classes. > > JMarc - Martin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
