On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:18:02PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
Again, maybe I'm too late, but:
Is a switch to XML is really a good idea?
XML is everywhere. That simple.
regards
john
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:18:02PM +0100, Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Again, maybe I'm too late, but:
> Is a switch to XML is really a good idea?
XML is everywhere. That simple.
regards
john
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:23:26AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
But I must say if that is the most recent developemtn tools on solaris
it is hugely useless as a development platform (and I don't belive it
is).
I get the impression most C++ people on Solaris are using Sun Studio.
There
On Thu, Mar 05, 2009 at 01:23:26AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> But I must say if that is the most recent developemtn tools on solaris
> it is hugely useless as a development platform (and I don't belive it
> is).
I get the impression most C++ people on Solaris are using Sun Studio.
>
, and there is a rationale behind it.
Neither Word, OO or any of my Text-Editors has a Document-menu.
I would be nice to dig the old thread concerning the current menu
structure. John Levon had a pretty through analysis of Higs at the
time.
I've been idly watching this thread. It's obviously unfair of me
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 01:03:38AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) The number of items is very big. Do we have any room to grow ? Oowriter
interface is a clone of the old Word interface that was considered a
3) There is IMHO useless complexity, like the 7 different preview formats.
If we
a WINDOW
> > menu, and there is a rationale behind it.
> > Neither Word, OO or any of my Text-Editors has a Document-menu.
>
> I would be nice to dig the old thread concerning the current menu
> structure. John Levon had a pretty through analysis of Higs at the
> time.
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 01:03:38AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1) The number of items is very big. Do we have any room to grow ? Oowriter
> interface is a clone of the old Word interface that was considered a
>
> 3) There is IMHO useless complexity, like the 7 different preview formats.
>
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:49:07AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
You already failed. Why would I get used to it, when I can just go use
TeXMacs and mark my stuff up as I like?
But you (as a user) are free to go use other software (and apparently
you do already). Finger painting is not
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:02:05AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
Isn't 'natural' usually better? These things feel like atoms,
and inset-ness supports that. Not a big thing but anyway.
I don't believe that people will think it's natural that selection jumps
across an entire (say)
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:32:48AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
I don't believe that people will think it's natural that selection jumps
across an entire (say) firstname.
When using using word (but not Oo.o), the selection jumps from word to
word as soon as you are selecting more
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:49:07AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >You already failed. Why would I get used to it, when I can just go use
> >TeXMacs and mark my stuff up as I like?
>
> But you (as a user) are free to go use other software (and apparently
> you do already). Finger painting is
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 08:02:05AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > Isn't 'natural' usually better? These things feel like atoms,
> > > and inset-ness supports that. Not a big thing but anyway.
> >
> > I don't believe that people will think it's natural that selection jumps
> > across an
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:32:48AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > I don't believe that people will think it's natural that selection jumps
> > across an entire (say) .
>
> When using using word (but not Oo.o), the selection jumps from word to
> word as soon as you are selecting more than
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 10:53:14PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
I don't think you are. Do you seriously think I am that
dogmatic? Come on. I can recognise a use case where insets
are a plain bad idea.
I don't think you're dogmatic. I'm genuinely interested in what makes CT
insets
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 08:46:47PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
Let me see: is your UI objection due to the fact that running
text is linear, a narrative, and insets break that logic
(selection, cursor movement, line breaking)?
That seems like a fair summation.
If so (a sensible argument),
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 10:13:54PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
sense for the UI to express this semantic difference. How does this
advantage the user? I don't remember seeing a clear answer to this
question.
Isn't 'natural' usually better? These things feel like atoms,
and inset-ness
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 09:41:11PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I don't believe that people will think it's natural that selection jumps
across an entire (say) firstname.
Even if so, once he gets used to it and realize how everything is faster
^^
You
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 10:53:14PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > I don't think you are. Do you seriously think I am that
> > > dogmatic? Come on. I can recognise a use case where insets
> > > are a plain bad idea.
> >
> > I don't think you're dogmatic. I'm genuinely interested in what
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 08:46:47PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Let me see: is your UI objection due to the fact that running
> text is linear, a narrative, and insets break that logic
> (selection, cursor movement, line breaking)?
That seems like a fair summation.
> If so (a sensible
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 10:13:54PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > sense for the UI to express this semantic difference. How does this
> > advantage the user? I don't remember seeing a clear answer to this
> > question.
>
> Isn't 'natural' usually better? These things feel like atoms,
> and
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 09:41:11PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >I don't believe that people will think it's natural that selection jumps
> >across an entire (say) .
>
> Even if so, once he gets used to it and realize how everything is faster
^^
You
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:05:22AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
Well indeed. This makes me somewhat dubious that your experience is
relevant. I'm not anti-inset in any way where they make sense, and I
think the branches stuff is a great example.
I'm somewhat bemused by your comments
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:12:28AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
The only thing I could ask for here, is to see the borders also when
the cursor is right in front of the inset, because the delete key
will delete the entire inset if used at that point. That is obvious if
the
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 10:44:38AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
1) familiarity. This is how every other editor I'm familiar with works.
This one is not an argument for me. Otherwise I'd still use MS Word.
I am 80% sure that the success of LyX is in its ability to mix
simplicity with
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:42:41PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
Actually I came to more or less the same view.
So:
- Noun should become an inset charstyle (lyx2lyx)
- Strong should take a similar slot as Emph, i.e.
a (non-inset) font attribute.
But:
- Code should be an inset
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 05:32:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
I think John understand our point of view very well but he's playing the
devil's advocate.
Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
editing equations is like editing prose.
(I'd love to be able
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:34:33PM +0200, Dov Feldstern wrote:
I actually agree with Andre' here, this would be good behavior for
*true* insets IMO.
Agreed, I think it's a nice solution to the delete a footnote problem,
with perhaps the change that it only applies if the inset is not
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 09:02:03AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I think John understand our point of view very well but he's playing the
devil's advocate.
Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
editing equations is like editing prose.
regards,
john
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:38:27AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
it is obvious that if the user doesn't check those boxes the parameters
won't be set. and as i wrote, if we would do this we will deviate from
what we are doing in the rest of lyx.
Maybe Uwe thinks of them as Advanced
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:59:11PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
Change tracking. Initially it was crippled and very limited,
then I partly un-crippled it, and then Michael put in _a lot_
of effort to iron all the bugs out and instill some sanity.
Yes, change tracking was tough, and fixing it
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:00:41PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
editing equations is like editing prose.
Well, I am a scientist and I often have the need to apply the same style
to some specific words. These words are
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:54:09PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
You seem to be arguing that when we have two otherwise equal choices,
and one behaves like Word, we should choose the other one.
No, I meant that, in this _specific_ case, I hate the way MS Word
behaves and we should do the
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:09:31PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
The font-related RTL business and the boundary stuff is far far from
easy. Look at the different getFont() method and you will see how this
stuff is complicated.
RTL is hard full stop, I'm not sure that's related to styles
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:34:24PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
(Unfortunately insets are no good for CT)
Interesting, why? From what I can see it seems that all the inset
people's preferences apply just the same to CT.
Funny :-(
I'm serious, I don't understand why it's different
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:59:45PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
I think John understand our point of view very well but he's playing the
devil's advocate.
Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
editing equations is like editing prose.
You are not a
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 10:23:58PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
(Unfortunately insets are no good for CT)
Interesting, why? From what I can see it seems that all the inset
people's preferences apply just the same to CT.
Funny :-(
I'm serious, I don't understand why
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:05:22AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > Well indeed. This makes me somewhat dubious that your experience is
> > relevant. I'm not anti-inset in any way where they make sense, and I
> > think the branches stuff is a great example.
> >
> > I'm somewhat bemused by your
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:12:28AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > > > > The only thing I could ask for here, is to see the borders also when
> > > > > the cursor is right in front of the inset, because the "delete" key
> > > > > will delete the entire inset if used at that point. That is obvious
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 10:44:38AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >>>1) familiarity. This is how every other editor I'm familiar with works.
> >>This one is not an argument for me. Otherwise I'd still use MS Word.
> >
> >I am 80% sure that the success of LyX is in its ability to mix
>
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:42:41PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Actually I came to more or less the same view.
>
> So:
>
> - Noun should become an inset charstyle (lyx2lyx)
> - Strong should take a similar slot as Emph, i.e.
> a (non-inset) "font" attribute.
>
> But:
>
> - Code should be
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 05:32:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > I think John understand our point of view very well but he's playing the
> > devil's advocate.
>
> Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
> editing equations is like edit
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:34:33PM +0200, Dov Feldstern wrote:
> I actually agree with Andre' here, this would be good behavior for
> *true* insets IMO.
Agreed, I think it's a nice solution to the "delete a footnote" problem,
with perhaps the change that it only applies if the inset is not
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 09:02:03AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> I think John understand our point of view very well but he's playing the
> devil's advocate.
Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
editing equations is like editing prose.
regards,
john
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:38:27AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >it is obvious that if the user doesn't check those boxes the parameters
> >won't be set. and as i wrote, if we would do this we will deviate from
> >what we are doing in the rest of lyx.
>
> Maybe Uwe thinks of them as
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:59:11PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Change tracking. Initially it was crippled and very limited,
> then I partly un-crippled it, and then Michael put in _a lot_
> of effort to iron all the bugs out and instill some sanity.
Yes, change tracking was tough, and fixing
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:00:41PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >>Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
> >>editing equations is like editing prose.
>
> Well, I am a scientist and I often have the need to apply the same style
> to some specific words. These
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:54:09PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >You seem to be arguing that when we have two otherwise equal choices,
> >and one behaves like Word, we should choose the other one.
>
> No, I meant that, in this _specific_ case, I hate the way MS Word
> behaves and we should
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:09:31PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> The font-related RTL business and the boundary stuff is far far from
> easy. Look at the different getFont() method and you will see how this
> stuff is complicated.
RTL is hard full stop, I'm not sure that's related to
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:34:24PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > (Unfortunately insets are no good for CT)
> >
> > Interesting, why? From what I can see it seems that all the inset
> > people's preferences apply just the same to CT.
>
> Funny :-(
I'm serious, I don't understand why it's
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:59:45PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > > I think John understand our point of view very well but he's playing the
> > > devil's advocate.
> >
> > Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
> > editing equations is like editing prose.
>
>
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 10:23:58PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > > > (Unfortunately insets are no good for CT)
> > > >
> > > > Interesting, why? From what I can see it seems that all the inset
> > > > people's preferences apply just the same to CT.
> > >
> > > Funny :-(
> >
> > I'm
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:13:59AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
More seriously, this whole discussion comes a bit late IMHO. I know
that you emitted some objections when Martin started the
implementation but they were not too strong. We have something _now_
and I'd be a pity to
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 06:46:45PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
Not very convincing, is it? Most people learn from experience. What
would happen here is that they would quickly pick up that -- no, this
stuff does not behave like italicize; it behaves like insets instead.
Familiar paradigm
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 06:52:48PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
Why do we need to nest insets then ? :-P
Actually I don't think we should (usually). In text, cases where we
want to nest (charstyle) insets ought to be rare, if we have defined
them as sensible semantic units. Over-use of
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 09:48:33PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
And for The Honoured Believers in Single Keystroke Navigation (formerly
known as The Finger Painting Faction) the multiple pos 5, range *
positions can be collapsed to a single one. A simple boolean preference,
maybe even
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 09:42:09PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
Why do we need to nest insets then ? :-P
Actually I don't think we should (usually). In text, cases where we
want to nest (charstyle) insets ought to be rare, if we have defined
them as sensible semantic units.
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 09:28:25PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
Could you list the advantages of an exposed inset UI?
1) You know precisely where a typed character goes -- or where an
already typed character belongs. Inside or outside any given inset.
A special case of this is for blanks,
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:16:50PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
Branches are not charstyles, of course.
Well indeed. This makes me somewhat dubious that your experience is
relevant. I'm not anti-inset in any way where they make sense, and I
think the branches stuff is a great example.
I'm
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:06:50AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
_Especially_ from the writing process viewpoint you should appreciate
the ease with which you can undo things in the inset paradigm. Regret an
applied emphasis? Put the cursor inside and dissolve. No need to
carefully select the
If I type into say a FirstName charstyle in docbook, the blue banner
beneath just over-writes itself. I think it might be because Author is
centered text. It doesn't happen after a certain inset size. Anyone else?
I can see a similar thing during selection too.
Copy and paste doesn't seem to
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:22:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
The only thing I could ask for here, is to see the borders also when
the cursor is right in front of the inset, because the delete key
will delete the entire inset if used at that point. That is obvious if
the frame is
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 09:52:52PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
I don't think it was designed to do so. If it should, then that probably
isn't terribly hard.
I do think it should...
BTW, why do the styles appear as CharStyle:foo in the menu?
This is a consequence of some of Martin's
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:56:25AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
If I type into say a FirstName charstyle in docbook, the blue banner
beneath just over-writes itself. I think it might be because Author is
centered text. It doesn't happen after a certain inset size. Anyone else?
Thought I
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:37:05AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
If what Martin means is that *LyX* will have no ambiguity, e.g, when
generating latex/XML, then I think that the disambiguation algorithm
suggested in this thread
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.editors.lyx.devel/95997
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:13:59AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > More seriously, this whole discussion comes a bit late IMHO. I know
> > that you emitted some objections when Martin started the
> > implementation but they were not too strong. We have something _now_
> > and I'd be a pity
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 06:46:45PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Not very convincing, is it? Most people learn from experience. What
> would happen here is that they would quickly pick up that -- no, this
> stuff does not behave like italicize; it behaves like insets instead.
> Familiar paradigm
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 06:52:48PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > Why do we need to nest insets then ? :-P
>
> Actually I don't think we should (usually). In text, cases where we
> want to nest (charstyle) insets ought to be rare, if we have defined
> them as sensible semantic units. Over-use
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 09:48:33PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> And for The Honoured Believers in Single Keystroke Navigation (formerly
> known as The Finger Painting Faction) the multiple "pos 5, range *"
> positions can be collapsed to a single one. A simple boolean preference,
> maybe even
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 09:42:09PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > > Why do we need to nest insets then ? :-P
> > >
> > > Actually I don't think we should (usually). In text, cases where we
> > > want to nest (charstyle) insets ought to be rare, if we have defined
> > > them as sensible
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 09:28:25PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > Could you list the advantages of an exposed inset UI?
>
> 1) You know precisely where a typed character goes -- or where an
> already typed character belongs. Inside or outside any given inset.
> A special case of this is for
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:16:50PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Branches are not charstyles, of course.
Well indeed. This makes me somewhat dubious that your experience is
relevant. I'm not anti-inset in any way where they make sense, and I
think the branches stuff is a great example.
I'm
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:06:50AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> _Especially_ from the writing process viewpoint you should appreciate
> the ease with which you can undo things in the inset paradigm. Regret an
> applied emphasis? Put the cursor inside and dissolve. No need to
> carefully select
If I type into say a FirstName charstyle in docbook, the blue banner
beneath just over-writes itself. I think it might be because Author is
centered text. It doesn't happen after a certain inset size. Anyone else?
I can see a similar thing during selection too.
Copy and paste doesn't seem to
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:22:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > > The only thing I could ask for here, is to see the borders also when
> > > the cursor is right in front of the inset, because the "delete" key
> > > will delete the entire inset if used at that point. That is obvious if
> > >
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 09:52:52PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> I don't think it was designed to do so. If it should, then that probably
> isn't terribly hard.
I do think it should...
> >BTW, why do the styles appear as CharStyle:foo in the menu?
> >
> This is a consequence of some of
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:56:25AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > If I type into say a FirstName charstyle in docbook, the blue banner
> > beneath just over-writes itself. I think it might be because Author is
> > centered text. It doesn't happen after a certain inset size. Anyone else?
>
>
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:37:05AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > If what Martin means is that *LyX* will have no ambiguity, e.g, when
> > generating latex/XML, then I think that the disambiguation algorithm
> > suggested in this thread
> >
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 08:25:12AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
However, insets imply all sorts of things about cursor movement and
mouse placement. Unless things in this area got *massively* cleaned up
since I last looked at the code, getting correct cursor movement with
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:12:22PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
We will face challenge for sure but Cursor movement is already
working well for entering and leaving insets. We will have to decide
what to do with selection though. I am in the opinion that when
coming outside of an
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 10:03:32AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
Of course this would emphasize structure and would not be acceptable
by the finger painting faction as that's not what they used to.
How do you expect a reasonable discourse when you characterize your
opponents thus?
john
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:30:32PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
This isn't about overlapping extents as I see it, it's about a natural
feel for the UI. In particular, if I click-drag at point A in this
diagram:
foo bar C foo bar A foo bar foo bar B
and drag towards B, it
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:43:21PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
What would you advocate? Stay with ranges or try to make the insets
feel reasonable?
The solution is maybe to limit the number of words to *one* within a
given charstyle. This would mean that pressing space at the end of a
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:47:50PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
That's true for the current insets, absolutely *not* for char styles.
It's not acceptable for it to need two keypresses to get from a to b in
'ab' just because a has a different char style.
But why would you want to have two
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 03:00:13PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Nothing too recent I guess and I am not sure when was John's last visit
to the source code :-)
John, do you know about DocIterator? They were designed specifically for
cursor navigation across insets.
I do (I remember its
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 03:17:09PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
But why would you want to have two different charstyles in the _same_
word? If you need that then I would say that this is a use case where
you really want to use font attributes and not charstyle.
This applies equally
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 03:44:34PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
That's a very bold statement to make, and is certainly not true of (for
example) code fragments, where a comma is most certainly not part of the
variable char style.
Then just put it outside the charstyle, something that is
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 04:23:00PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Really? I didn't know that, but then I am not a pro of MS Word. What is
I haven't used or looked at MS Word in years.
the equivalent of charstyle in MS Word? I hope you are not talking about
the formatting styles that you
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:15:52PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
4. Inset dissolving should be more intuitive. There should be a menu
item Remove charstyle---it doesn't have to be called that---that
dissolves the current (innermost) inset. Maybe there should also be a
I believe you can do
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:22:00PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
The difficulty is that, if you're already in the inset, you might be
wanting to apply another one. How do you distinguish that from changing
the inset type (which is the most natural thing).
You only change anything if there's a
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 08:06:18PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
No need to select... just be inside the inset to be dissolved.
It's needed or you can't tell choose a style, then type in it from
change this text to be the style I select
regards
john
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 10:33:41PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
No need to select... just be inside the inset to be dissolved.
It's needed or you can't tell choose a style, then type in it from
change this text to be the style I select
regards
john
Dissolving... no such
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 07:45:21PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
Of course this would emphasize structure and would not be acceptable
by the finger painting faction as that's not what they used to.
How do you expect a reasonable discourse when you characterize your
opponents thus?
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 08:25:12AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >However, insets imply all sorts of things about cursor movement and
> >mouse placement. Unless things in this area got *massively* cleaned up
> >since I last looked at the code, getting correct cursor movement with
>
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:12:22PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >> We will face challenge for sure but Cursor movement is already
> >> working well for entering and leaving insets. We will have to decide
> >> what to do with selection though. I am in the opinion that when
> >> coming
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 10:03:32AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> Of course this would emphasize structure and would not be acceptable
> by the finger painting faction as that's not what they used to.
How do you expect a reasonable discourse when you characterize your
opponents thus?
john
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:30:32PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > This isn't about overlapping extents as I see it, it's about a natural
> > feel for the UI. In particular, if I click-drag at point A in this
> > diagram:
> >
> > foo bar C foo bar A foo bar foo bar B
> >
> > and drag
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:43:21PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >What would you advocate? Stay with ranges or try to make the insets
> >feel reasonable?
>
> The solution is maybe to limit the number of words to *one* within a
> given charstyle. This would mean that pressing at the end of
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:47:50PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >That's true for the current insets, absolutely *not* for char styles.
> >It's not acceptable for it to need two keypresses to get from a to b in
> >'ab' just because a has a different char style.
>
> But why would you want to
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 03:00:13PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Nothing too recent I guess and I am not sure when was John's last visit
> to the source code :-)
>
> John, do you know about DocIterator? They were designed specifically for
> cursor navigation across insets.
I do (I
1 - 100 of 13943 matches
Mail list logo
