On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 13:03, Lars Gullik BjÃnnes wrote: > Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 11:26, Lars Gullik BjÃÂnnes wrote: > >> Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> | 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? > >> > > >> | My take: if the new way works, then use it. What's the point of writing > >> it > >> | otherwise? > >> > >> My take. Do not continue "fixing" stuff for 1.4.0. Only remove the > >> bugs, and real bloopers. Things that work: leave as is. > > > | Was that an answer to my question, and if so, what was it? > > Is this the right time for this, do we need this now? And: can it > wait?
We have to at least remove the confusion. Jean-Marc's proposal (remove the noun inset from stdclass) would more or less do that. But then I am still unhappy with the toolbar button texts 'noun style' and 'emphasize' which promise more logical mark-up than they offer -- just more confusion. > | And did you > | look at the patch? > | ;-) > > no. OK :-) - Martin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
