On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Asger Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
[...lots more clarifications...]
> > We all agree in that it's necessary to get ride of that stuff, what
> > is not clear is how to do it. Your model doesn't automatically
> > eliminates the need of the inset codes. You have to check how and
> > w
> I understand when you use wrongly the word "inset" as a
> structure that holds font info, etc. I disagree with this usage but
> we won't stop the much more interesting discussion on the internal
> structure for this. (I just read that Allan will forget about font
> insets anyway, so let's all do
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Alejandro Aguilar Sierra wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Asger Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
[...words, words and more words...]>
> Currently in 1.1 the text inset (InsetText) is the base class for all
> insets that have inside editable text and that can be adapted to a
> given box.
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Alejandro Aguilar Sierra wrote:
> 4- With all this in mind, the remaining structure to discuss is the
>"atom" container (which btw has never been an LString and it
>doesn't have to be it). Imagine it as a vector. Even a single
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Asger Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> Here's my idea of the inset design at the moment. I hope this will
> settle the discussion between Alejandro and Allan, which mostly is a
> discussion about words.
Just in part. I understand when you use wrongly the word "inset" as a
structur
