OK great: The fact that GNX is considered visually intrusive is a separate issue. There should be a design to mitigate that. My diagnosis: you are confusing two diseases as having the same cause. 1- There are bad GNX (functionality). If GNX is fixed it makes the visual worse. 2- There are visual problems with displaying them in external files (perhaps other problems related to this?) So fix (2) and then (1) will be OK. Todd.
So to fix (2), I would add something to their output format to distinguish 'new' from 'old'. If it is 'new', then I would display it differently in a nicer way (if possible, for example: perhaps an index to a table of real GNX at the end of the file). If it is old then it is old. So a way is needed to uniquely show 'new' that 'old' cannot 'masquerade' as (be confused as) Todd. On Friday, October 24, 2014 6:17:43 AM UTC-4, Edward K. Ream wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Fidel N <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > Couldn't two gnx be stored? > > - a short one visually acceptable for inside the documents that the > external > > user will see, just with a reference to the actual gnx it refers to. > Maybe > > just an index of the place that the real gnx has within the Leo > document. > > - A second one, embedded in the Leo file, stored in a "list of gnx's", > in a > > certain order that would be referred from the simple one. Just the > position > > of the gnx's lists would need to be stored within the first one. > > I considered such a scheme many years ago. Not only is it more > complex, it's not robust enough. Sentinel comments must be > self-contained. > > Edward > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
