Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 13:03, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>> Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> | On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 11:26, Lars Gullik Bjønnes 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.
they provide the same amount of mark-up that you get from LaTex (at
least the emph does... the noun is a strange bastard)
--
Lgb
