Am 21.07.2011 08:30, schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
The implementation in InsetSpace is indeed better for the on-screen
representation. So I'm convinced now, but we should do something about the
menu logic. Perhaps we can use the menu Insert->Special character->Visible
space that inserts an InsetSpace with \textvisiblespace?
I'm not sure. The split of "Special characters" and "Special formatting" was
performed basically because the special characters menu was too crowded. The
distinction is not sensible in all cases anyway. I would not populate the
special characters menu with a space item. The \textvisiblespace item of
InsetSpace will basically serve "to make a space visible". If they want the
character, people will also find it in the symbols dialog.
OK. I'm hereby retract my patch proposal. So Pavel, from my side, please go on with the InsetSpace
implementation.
At this point I'm not yet convinced. I still think that also in the
InsetSpace implementation, it should not be possible to change a visible
space to e.g. an interword space because their width in the output will not
be the same.
This makes no sense to me. Why should I'm not be allowed to do such a change?
I'm doing such changes all the time, with good reasons. After all, you are
also allowed to change a 10cm hspace to a 1mm hspace, where the width in the
output will change even more.
Sure, but then the user is aware what the change means. By changing a space to a character, he might
not know the consequences. But if you really think that this won't harm, then do it this way.
regards Uwe
