On Wednesday 24 October 2001 10:26, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>>> "Juergen" == Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Juergen> What I thought about this is that we shouldn't use a > Juergen> InsetCommand Type inset as that does not have inline view > Juergen> (just the button view which for some is not enough). We would > Juergen> have to use the actual ERT inset but we don't permit editing! > Juergen> That means that the edit call actually should open the edit > Juergen> window. All other can stay as it is now only we won't have a > Juergen> uncollapsed view. We would have the inline view and the > Juergen> button-view (collapsed). While in inline view the cursor will > Juergen> jump "over" the inset not as it is now go inside for editing. > Juergen> Editting will only be possible when left-clicking on the > Juergen> inset or with the special "Edit/Open" keyboard shortcut. > > This seems a bit complicated to me... Editing both in a popup or in > inline view. > > One very good thing about Herbert proposal is that we would just avoid > using insettext for ert (which avoids a lot of problems with fonts, > etc. If you want to keep inline view, you will need to use intettext > anyway! > > Of course the right solution is Lars' proposal of a ascii-only > intettext.
Which can be used as a widget in a separate dialog...
