Tuesday, November 12, 2002 Hans Hagen wrote: HH> At 12:46 AM 11/12/2002 +0100, you wrote:
>>Maybe we may want to have a per-startstop option >>(obeypars=true,obeypars=false) together/in place of the global >>\obeypars/\noobeypars (or \obeyparstrue/\obeyparsfalse). >> >>Let's say that the best thing (again IMO) is to have a global >>option, overridable in each startstop: the obeypars key in >>startstops would then accept the values true (force true), false >>(force false), default (behave according to the global setting). >> >>Does this sound sensible? HH> hm, tricky, in many cases start/stop can be anything, not just skips and so Would it really be that tricky? It should just decide wether to skip the next \par or not ... HH> concerning redudancy: what's wrong with that? it gives you much more HH> control and suits today's way of coding Awfully verbose. Wrist-heavy. Definitely not the way to go (btw that's the reason why I *hate* XML). It *requires* a tuned editor which will insert the code for you, to reach the same productivity level. -- Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta _______________________________________________ ntg-context mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
