> Interesting.
>
> For "$foo{X_{s}}bar$", that would mean:
> * cursor to the left of "X_{s}" -> whole formula highlighted
Well... just a frame. Not a solid box..
> * cursor to the left of "X" -> just "X" highlighted
> There's no case where "X_{s}" gets highlighed, so there's no indication
> that it's treated as a unit. But you *could* play loose and not adhere
> precisely to the inset structure: things would look OK if you highlight
> "X_{s}" instead of just "X" in the second case. Doesn't solve the extra
> cursor movement problem, though.
So... maybe two frames - one for the inset, one for the cell within the
inset... or a frame and a solid box...
|X_s+a -> frame 1 all, frame 2 all (Cursor position: |)
<Right>
|X_s+a -> frame 1 X_s, frame 2 X
<Down>
X_|s -> frame 1 X_s, frame 2 s
or
|X_s+a -> frame 1 all, frame 2 all (Cursor position: |)
<Down>
X_|s -> frame 1 X_s, frame 2 s
> Pracital problem: can't rely on fine color distinctions, some people
> have bad screens (laptops) or run in 256 color modes. On the other hand,
> the highlight of the whole formula turns off and on when you enter an
> inset, so a strong color difference may be nauseating. Can draw a frame
> instead, or something of the sorts.
I meant a frame originally...
> About semantics, BTW, what's wrong with the current (and TeX's) implicit
> "the base is the first thing to the left"? While the representation is
> not explicit, the semantics are well-defined and easy to retrieve and
> that's the important part.
Hm. Don't know. Maybe you are right after all...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz ............................................. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
