On 07.11.2005 08:24:14 Manuel Mall wrote:
<snip/>
> Of course that would be quite a change internally although limited to 
> inline LMs and not affecting any block level operations. The way to do 
> this would be a branch in svn. But before I embark on such an endeavour 
> I'll like to seek some feedback on the list. Anyone aware of serious 
> problems with such an approach?

No.

> Has it been tried before and failed for example?

We had to change a few things during the transition to the Knuth
approach. Sometimes, changes are necessary and it makes no sense to
stubbornly stick to what is already there. 

> Those who designed the current getNextKnuth approach may have 
> arguments why changing it for inline LMs is a bad idea?

I have none. You seem to have good arguments for changing the interface.
Still, care should be taken that the LMs stay as uniform as possible so
it's possible to add layout managers for custom elements and that
non-character content is handled well and without too much custom logic
because the changed approach focuses strongly on text.

> Any other views / concerns?

The above said, it should be noted that I haven't dived, yet, into the
Unicode stuff you've been discussing lately. I'm very happy about the
flurry of activity in this area. It looked like a good discussion. I
hope you will excuse me if I don't participate too much there right now.


Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to