On Wednesday 19 September 2007 06:48:10 Martin Vermeer wrote:
IIRC is (emph = {}, noun = []):
[aaa { bbb ] ccc}
will be translated as
[aaa { bbb }]{ ccc}
what is the problem?
Yes, that's how to do it if you insist. And that's how a font attribute
to inset converter has to
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:07:02 +0100
José Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 19 September 2007 06:48:10 Martin Vermeer wrote:
IIRC is (emph = {}, noun = []):
[aaa { bbb ] ccc}
will be translated as
[aaa { bbb }]{ ccc}
what is the problem?
Yes, that's how
José Matos wrote:
There are other more subtle problems, I have hit them before with docbook.
Using the same notation let us suppose that some range has two properties
applied, which version do we mean?
[{range}] or {[range...]}
The only sane procedure is to look to the export
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 08:07:02AM +0100, José Matos wrote:
On Wednesday 19 September 2007 06:48:10 Martin Vermeer wrote:
IIRC is (emph = {}, noun = []):
[aaa { bbb ] ccc}
will be translated as
[aaa { bbb }]{ ccc}
what is the problem?
Yes, that's how to do it if
On Wednesday 19 September 2007 06:48:10 Martin Vermeer wrote:
> >
> > IIRC is (emph = {}, noun = []):
> >
> > [aaa { bbb ] ccc}
> >
> > will be translated as
> >
> > [aaa { bbb }]{ ccc}
> >
> > what is the problem?
>
> Yes, that's how to do it if you insist. And that's how a font attribute
> to
On Wed, 19 Sep 2007 08:07:02 +0100
José Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 September 2007 06:48:10 Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > >
> > > IIRC is (emph = {}, noun = []):
> > >
> > > [aaa { bbb ] ccc}
> > >
> > > will be translated as
> > >
> > > [aaa { bbb }]{ ccc}
> > >
> > > what is
José Matos wrote:
There are other more subtle problems, I have hit them before with docbook.
Using the same notation let us suppose that some range has two properties
applied, which version do we mean?
[{range}] or {[range...]}
The only sane procedure is to look to the export
On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 08:07:02AM +0100, José Matos wrote:
> On Wednesday 19 September 2007 06:48:10 Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > >
> > > IIRC is (emph = {}, noun = []):
> > >
> > > [aaa { bbb ] ccc}
> > >
> > > will be translated as
> > >
> > > [aaa { bbb }]{ ccc}
> > >
> > > what is the problem?
>
Are these LFUNs still desirable in their present form? I have
specifically in mind LFUN_FONT_CODE and LFUN_FONT_NOUN, which have
really been replaced with logical character styles.
Richard
--
==
Richard G Heck, Jr
Professor of
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 01:42:47PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
Are these LFUNs still desirable in their present form? I have
specifically in mind LFUN_FONT_CODE and LFUN_FONT_NOUN, which have
really been replaced with logical character styles.
Richard
Hmmm yes... actually I would like to
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 01:42:47PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
Are these LFUNs still desirable in their present form? I have
specifically in mind LFUN_FONT_CODE and LFUN_FONT_NOUN, which have
really been replaced with logical character styles.
Hmmm yes... actually
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 19:01:48 Martin Vermeer wrote:
Providing the corresponding lyx2lyx entry is going to be interesting.
But then we need the inset in inset case that André mentioned. After it is
possible to have word in noun and emphasised right now and we should
accommodate for
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:57:18PM +0100, José Matos wrote:
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 19:01:48 Martin Vermeer wrote:
Providing the corresponding lyx2lyx entry is going to be interesting.
But then we need the inset in inset case that André mentioned. After it is
possible to have word
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 21:39:57 Martin Vermeer wrote:
Cannot be (easily) done with
insets. I would call that a feature: you shouldn't _want_ to do that ;-)
There is no good reason for not having insets inside inside insets. It is an
artificial limitation and it should be lifted. That
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:12:43PM +0100, José Matos wrote:
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 21:39:57 Martin Vermeer wrote:
Cannot be (easily) done with
insets. I would call that a feature: you shouldn't _want_ to do that ;-)
There is no good reason for not having insets inside inside
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:57:18PM +0100, José Matos wrote:
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 19:01:48 Martin Vermeer wrote:
Providing the corresponding lyx2lyx entry is going to be interesting.
But then we need the inset in inset case that André mentioned. After it is
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 22:24:32 Martin Vermeer wrote:
But you can! Just not half-way inside. It's not an artificial
limitation. In HTML you can do it, but it is frowned upon, rightly.
This is about logical mark-up. Where would you want to emphasize a
passage that includes only half the
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:42:19PM +0100, José Matos wrote:
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 22:24:32 Martin Vermeer wrote:
But you can! Just not half-way inside. It's not an artificial
limitation. In HTML you can do it, but it is frowned upon, rightly.
This is about logical mark-up. Where
Are these LFUNs still desirable in their present form? I have
specifically in mind LFUN_FONT_CODE and LFUN_FONT_NOUN, which have
really been replaced with logical character styles.
Richard
--
==
Richard G Heck, Jr
Professor of
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 01:42:47PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
>
> Are these LFUNs still desirable in their present form? I have
> specifically in mind LFUN_FONT_CODE and LFUN_FONT_NOUN, which have
> really been replaced with logical character styles.
>
> Richard
Hmmm yes... actually I would
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 01:42:47PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
Are these LFUNs still desirable in their present form? I have
specifically in mind LFUN_FONT_CODE and LFUN_FONT_NOUN, which have
really been replaced with logical character styles.
Hmmm yes... actually
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 19:01:48 Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Providing the corresponding lyx2lyx entry is going to be "interesting".
But then we need the inset in inset case that André mentioned. After it is
possible to have word in noun and emphasised right now and we should
accommodate for
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:57:18PM +0100, José Matos wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 September 2007 19:01:48 Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > Providing the corresponding lyx2lyx entry is going to be "interesting".
>
> But then we need the inset in inset case that André mentioned. After it is
> possible to
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 21:39:57 Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Cannot be (easily) done with
> insets. I would call that a feature: you shouldn't _want_ to do that ;-)
There is no good reason for not having insets inside inside insets. It is an
artificial limitation and it should be lifted. That
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:12:43PM +0100, José Matos wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 September 2007 21:39:57 Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > Cannot be (easily) done with
> > insets. I would call that a feature: you shouldn't _want_ to do that ;-)
>
> There is no good reason for not having insets inside inside
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:57:18PM +0100, José Matos wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 September 2007 19:01:48 Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > Providing the corresponding lyx2lyx entry is going to be "interesting".
> But then we need the inset in inset case that André mentioned. After it
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 22:24:32 Martin Vermeer wrote:
> But you can! Just not half-way inside. It's not an artificial
> limitation. In HTML you can do it, but it is frowned upon, rightly.
> This is about logical mark-up. Where would you want to emphasize a
> passage that includes only half
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:42:19PM +0100, José Matos wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 September 2007 22:24:32 Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > But you can! Just not half-way inside. It's not an artificial
> > limitation. In HTML you can do it, but it is frowned upon, rightly.
> > This is about logical mark-up.
28 matches
Mail list logo
