https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115311
--- Comment #20 from Mike Kaganski <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Heiko Tietze from comment #19) > CS are typically a rare breed in text ??? Is there any statistics? And if so - then that would be a definite sign of *insufficient* promoting of this kind of style, and would have nothing to do with this issue. > using Emphasis and Strong Emphasis together has no real-world use case. ??? There was only one person in this thread, who ever mentioned the nested "Emphasis" (before me quoting it here) - it's you. Why you introduce an invalid case first, and then dismiss it as invalid, as if this makes the expected *proper* use less valid? > What might be a use case, however, is a > language, eg. a inline term in Latin should not trigger the English > spellchecker, together with attributes to make parts outstanding. Well, that's just a sample of correct use. And actually, even if it would be really useful *currently*, ideally the language should *not* be part of the style, but part of the content, so with bug 151290, *this* specific use would be obsolete. What's more typical / intended is e.g. having a "quotation" style, and "emphasis" applied on some part of it - because you want to emphasize part of quotation. Any kind of combination of semantical styles may make sense; there are styles like "example", or "definition", and the users *should* create their own semantical character styles - and the impossibility to nest them would lead to geomertical proliferation of styles, like "quotation emphasis", "example emphasis", "definition emphasis", "quotation definition", "quotation definition emphasis", ... ??? > In any case it is possible to create a CS and inherit it from a parent. The > procedure is well known from PS and easy to handle. No need to make the > Stylist more complex. => WFM Now tell me, which style should that "quotation emphasis" inherit from - "quotation" or "emphasis"? And e.g., if your answer "from quotation": when later you decide to change "emphasis", you also have to not forget to change "quotation emphasis" manually (and also all the other "something something emphasis" as well)? is this the good workflow for the great "only change in one place" paradigm? And WFM is not applicable here, since WFM, as you know, is for some problem that was there, but later was fixed by an unknown commit (it's the same as FIXED, just without a knows commit). IMO, it would be nice if, before the meeting discussion, the feature would be used - at least by some who will discuss it, at least for a week, but really used, with possible "hey, I am testing your idea X; I don't understand this, or that, or ... - clarify it in the bug, so that the call discussion could have at least minimal sense"... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
