Bo Peng wrote:
> > This is nonsense. I do not argue in favour of removing bold, italic and
> > small caps. However, they should not be visible on top.
>
> But if there is no charstyle equivalence, why not?
No one implemented it.
> > > If you hide bold, why do not you hide noun, emph and others? Do
> > > not tell me they are using charstyles.
> >
> > Of course. Noun (!= small caps) and emph (!= italics) are semantic
> > markup, while bf is not.
>
> Now I am confused. The advantage of charstyle is that bold can be
> \textbf, or anything defined in .layout. If emph is just \em, why is
> it different from \textbf? I thought that you want to replace emph
> with CharStyle Emph.
emphasized is a character style, defined in the LaTeX kernel. Emphasized does
not mean "italic", but "emphasized, however this is defined in this specific
context". You can see this easily by using
\textit{Compare this \textit{italic} with this \emph{emphasized} word}
You'll see that \emph will be upright (\textup) in an italic context. However,
\textit will _always_ be italics, no matter what context. Likewise, \textbf
will _always_ be bold, \textsc will _always_ be smallcaps.
Class authors can redefine \emph to whatever they want (bold, red color, or
whatever they think should be used for emphasizing in a specific class).
However, they are _not_ allowed to redefine \textbf, \textsc and \textit.
\noun is comparable to \emph, only it is defined by LyX. I have redefined
\noun to something different than \textsc in many documents. I would never
redefine \textsc itself -- this should always be small caps.
> > I just do not see the sense in implementing it now for 2 or 3 minor
> > releases.
>
> If we made a mistake, we should correct it. This is why we need minor
> releases.
The mistake would be to mix semantic and physical markup, IMHO.
Jürgen
