> We certainly do not want that. But it does not make sense to me in any
> document to include a paragraph into a paragraph without some kind of
> wrapper which specifies the semantics of the inner paragraph.
If these paragraphs have different properties, why not?
Why not at all?
I don't know whether you have worked with one of the newer releases of
Maple or Mathematica. They both have a really nice feature when it comes
to larger documents: You can structure the worksheet by "grouping"
cells or other "groups" and "hide" part of the worksheet by
"collapsing a group" (like LyX does with footnotes/tables).
Of course I don't know how this is implemented exactly, but one way
surely is to put the paragraphs of a group into another paragraph and
give this paragraph a flag "hidden". Export to LaTeX remains either
unchanged (i.e. the paragraph "hierarchy" is ignored) or one even could
imagine that hidden objects are not exported. The latter would be handy
if one e.g. wants to print the abstract or certain sections of a
document only.
While I am thinking about it: Changing something to paragraph style
"comment" removes its original style, am I right? This is particularly
annoying if one has changed a nested list into a comment, since this
means one has to recreate the list structure from scratch. I think
"paragraphs within paragraphs" could be used to work around it...
I think handling paragraphs differently than "real" insets only asks
for trouble in implementation, maintenance *and* useage... it is much
simpler to tell people "an A is something that contains other A's" than
to say "an A usually contains B, C and D, and a B might contain A's but C
and D not except you do ..." ;-)
Regards,
Andre'
--
Andre' Poenitz, TU Chemnitz, Fakultaet fuer Mathematik
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ... +49 3727 58 1381
