Thanks for the info ;-)
I'm very interested.
Best reagrds
Hellmut
Richard Heck schrieb:
Bo's working on a keybinding editor.
--
Dr. Hellmut Weber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Degenfeldstraße 2 tel +49-89-3081172
D-80803 München-Schwabing mobil +49-172-8450321
please: No DOCs, no PPTs.
Hellmut Weber wrote:
Hi,
having read your discussion only now because I was off line for
several days, I would like to comment from a users point of view.
I would like to argue that you should make more publicity for the key
bindings and provide some easily accessible list of all actual key
Hi,
having read your discussion only now because I was off line for several
days, I would like to comment from a users point of view.
I would like to argue that you should make more publicity for the key
bindings and provide some easily accessible list of all actual key bindings.
When I'm wo
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 10:44:37PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Bo Peng wrote:
> >>So if we ship LyX with built-in "emph" and "strong" charstyles, then
> >>the users wanting bold and italic gets what they want. And we
> >>still have the advantages of charstyles - a special document
> >>class can o
> > 1. charstyle is more difficult to use than font change. For example,
> > if you have abcdef in a charstyle, and you want to change all or part
> > of them to normal style, several steps are needed. Toggle-bold etc are
> > much easier in this case. So, for simple cases, font-change is easier
> >
Bo Peng wrote:
So if we ship LyX with built-in "emph" and "strong" charstyles, then
the users wanting bold and italic gets what they want. And we
still have the advantages of charstyles - a special document
class can override "strong" to do a color trick, for example.
1. charstyle is more
> So if we ship LyX with built-in "emph" and "strong" charstyles, then
> the users wanting bold and italic gets what they want. And we
> still have the advantages of charstyles - a special document
> class can override "strong" to do a color trick, for example.
1. charstyle is more difficult to us
Bo Peng wrote:
And those who will not learn should still be able to use physical markup
(although they should not be able to do this easily).
You guys are too idealistic.
There is nothing wrong to advocate charstyle, but there is no reason
to discourage the use of simple physical markup e
> What are the cases where you use bold?
Bold and italic are for emphasis. In the book I am writing, italic
(actually \em) is used for definitions and bold is used in other cases
like note.
Of course I can define for every case a charstyle like emph_note,
emph_description, emph_blah, but I do not
On Sun, Sep 30, 2007 at 05:30:02PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > That was what I had in mind, yes. I know there has been opposition to
> > that, but charstyles look a lot better now.
>
> I do not think that bold should be a charstyle. It kin
Bo Peng wrote:
> There is nothing wrong to advocate charstyle, but there is no reason
> to discourage the use of simple physical markup either. For simple
> texts, bold and italic are perfect for their purposes. Because they
> are used so often, they deserve a place in menu and toolbar.
I disagre
"Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There is nothing wrong to advocate charstyle, but there is no reason
> to discourage the use of simple physical markup either. For simple
> texts, bold and italic are perfect for their purposes. Because they
> are used so often, they deserve a place in menu
> And those who will not learn should still be able to use physical markup
> (although they should not be able to do this easily).
You guys are too idealistic.
There is nothing wrong to advocate charstyle, but there is no reason
to discourage the use of simple physical markup either. For simple
t
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> I do not think that bold should be a charstyle. It kind of defeats the
> idea.
>
> Even if fonts are turned to insets, they should be kept separate
> concepts.
+ 1.
We need a gui for charstyles, then people can attribute bold to whatever
entity they want.
And those
Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That was what I had in mind, yes. I know there has been opposition to
> that, but charstyles look a lot better now.
I do not think that bold should be a charstyle. It kind of defeats the
idea.
Even if fonts are turned to insets, they should be kept se
"Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> +lots---though, that said, there are times you just need a bit of boldface.
>
> It is easy enough for latex people to do \textbf{}. Why do we
> discourage the use of it??
But if we have Bold in the menus, why not sans serif? And what about
slanted?
Menus
On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 08:53:13AM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> I am confused. In a .lyx file, we have
>
> emph \emph on/default
> bold \series bold/default
> code \family typewriter
> noun \noun on
>
> So you want to define charstyle bold, emph, code and noun and lyx2lyx
> everything to something li
I am confused. In a .lyx file, we have
emph \emph on/default
bold \series bold/default
code \family typewriter
noun \noun on
So you want to define charstyle bold, emph, code and noun and lyx2lyx
everything to something like
\begin_inset CharStyle Emph
blah
end_inset
Bo
José Matos wrote:
On Saturday 29 September 2007 11:36:29 Martin Vermeer wrote:
That's why we need first of all toolbar buttons for emph,
strong, code and noun -- _as charstyles_.
(remember bold = strong, usually)
I agree. It is not difficult to implement, what is missing is the lyx2ly
On Saturday 29 September 2007 11:36:29 Martin Vermeer wrote:
> That's why we need first of all toolbar buttons for emph,
> strong, code and noun -- _as charstyles_.
>
> (remember bold = strong, usually)
I agree. It is not difficult to implement, what is missing is the lyx2lyx
part, right?
> -
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 11:14:10AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> John Levon wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:03:38AM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> >
> >> I helped a friend upgrade his lyx 1.3.7 to 1.5.1, and waited for his
> >> praises while he played with the new version
> >>
> > It's b
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 03:05:31PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> John Levon wrote:
> >Some time ago I posted a list of the big ticket items missing from LyX.
> >I think that character styles is basically the only thing left that's
> >truly crucial
> >
> What precisely do you think is missing in t
Bo Peng wrote:
Well, as I understand it, LyX is supposed to be a "semantic" text
processor. That's certainly where John's comment was coming from, and
mine. But people are not accustomed to thinking about writing that way,
in large part because standard word processors don't encourage it. So,
the
John Levon wrote:
Some time ago I posted a list of the big ticket items missing from LyX.
I think that character styles is basically the only thing left that's
truly crucial
What precisely do you think is missing in the present implementation?
Not that I think it's complete. I just want to kn
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:35:49PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> But before text style becomes useful, shouldnot we put bold
> buttons/menu items back? It is frustrating for new users that this
IMHO, yes, but let's not make it difficult to remove again.
john
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 07:25:29PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> We make it kind of difficult to let them be encouraged. If LyX were to
An old discussion people might find interesting:
http://marc.info/?l=lyx-devel&m=104974730920332&w=2
I accidentally made the mockup 404 though.
(From the days wh
> > Well, as I understand it, LyX is supposed to be a "semantic" text
> > processor. That's certainly where John's comment was coming from, and
> > mine. But people are not accustomed to thinking about writing that way,
> > in large part because standard word processors don't encourage it. So,
> >
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 02:16:40PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> Well, as I understand it, LyX is supposed to be a "semantic" text
> processor. That's certainly where John's comment was coming from, and
> mine. But people are not accustomed to thinking about writing that way,
> in large part bec
Bo Peng wrote:
+lots---though, that said, there are times you just need a bit of boldface.
It is easy enough for latex people to do \textbf{}. Why do we
discourage the use of it??
Well, as I understand it, LyX is supposed to be a "semantic" text
processor. That's certainly where John's
> +lots---though, that said, there are times you just need a bit of boldface.
It is easy enough for latex people to do \textbf{}. Why do we
discourage the use of it??
Bo
John Levon wrote:
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:03:38AM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
I helped a friend upgrade his lyx 1.3.7 to 1.5.1, and waited for his
praises while he played with the new version
It's because nobody ever finished character styles. It should have gone
like this:
F: Where's
On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 01:03:38AM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> I helped a friend upgrade his lyx 1.3.7 to 1.5.1, and waited for his
> praises while he played with the new version
It's because nobody ever finished character styles. It should have gone
like this:
F: Where's bold?
B: Why do you w
I helped a friend upgrade his lyx 1.3.7 to 1.5.1, and waited for his
praises while he played with the new version
F: Where is the layout menu?
B: Was there a layout menu? Yes, I remember that. It is removed.
F: OK, but where does it go? Where is layout -> bold?
B: Bold? Let me see no toolb
33 matches
Mail list logo
