On 2012-05-30, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Liviu Andronic wrote:
>> The only drawback with
>> using insets is that they're slightly more difficult to insert, but
>> this could be easily solved by fixing #7877.
> * They do not work with the outliner (i.e. you cannot easily move
> frames with the outliner, which is an important feature IMHO).
> * You cannot add custom options such as \begin{frame}[shrink=.9] or
> \begin{frame}<presentation>[<+->] with the custom inset approach, can
> you?
I know you can insert options like [shrink=.9] as "Insert>Short Title"
(only LyX insiders will find it under this name). How do you insert
<presentation> with a frame Style?
> I agree that the current layout solution is a hack, but either we need
> a much more sophisticated inset for frames, or we need to go for a
> different approach.
I still favour the "frames as insets" approach.
Ideal for Definitions Theorems and Proofs (amsmath), presentation frames
(seminar, powerdot, beamer), poster-boxes (a0poster) and similar
environments, would be a "block inset", a mixture of the current
"Style" and "Inset" layout elements:
* Represents a LaTeX environment or HTML block-level element.
* Is not a paragraph style but a container at "paragraph level"
(while current insets are "inline" elements).
Content is nested (by default as a Standard style
paragraph).
* Consecutive elements of same type are not merged into one environment
(the main problem with current Styles, see
http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/341),
* The LyX GUI draws a box around the content, moving in and out is done
as in other Insets.
* Accepts the OptionalArgs and RequiredArgs keywords (actually, this
should be possible for all custom insets),
* Can be moved around with the outliner.
I don't think that this is "much more sophisticated" -- all building
blocks are already there.
Günter
