Le 28/03/2012 15:29, Pavel Sanda a écrit :
I would really prefer to avoid this. I think we have to keep some semantics
to our object and avoid the "let's everything be possible" syndrom.
You would like to avoid this only at the UI level or at the coding level?
I mean at UI level. I do not see the need of having footnotes behaving
as branches. OTOH, greyed out notes would only make sense as something
that can be shown or hidden.
2)
Style Branch::Purple_FootNote //if style found branch automatically obtains TeX
wrapping
TeXBefore
TeXAfter
End
This one, but not with TeXBefore/after, rather the usual LatexName/Type.
I'm fine with anything which allows me to create branches like "green-text
emphasized"
or "blue-footnotes" without need to embed such constructs into each of branch
insets
and both of the proposals seems to provide this. I'm not expert in the layout
machinery
to see what is more elegant, though 1) looks less work.
If you are concerned about UI level only, we wouldn't define Branch Allow 1 for
our
generic insets...
I think that 2/ would already work, except that our code probably takes
too many shortcuts. In principle, our InsetLayout mechanism allows for
that. It would be interesting to try it out.
If we prefer to keep semantics of our objects than merging branch and note does
not look like a particularly good idea. At least the original concept of branch
is not just some note around. It looks rather as insufficient feature list of
notes than that we need to merge both concepts.
The point is that we have a particular type of notes that are actually
shown in the output (which defeats the purpose of notes). They are just
a lazy shortcut. Since branches with formatting are another lazy
shortcut, they are bound to meet one day :)
JMarc
PS: sorry for not noticing your message in time
