OsakaWebbie wrote: > I thought of a different way that might be even more natural than a table > - I don't know if it will be any easier for making a macro for automation, > but it might be worth considering.
While helping my wife prepare the Christmas Eve supper (which is the most important part of whole Christmas in this Czech household), I was thinking about Ruby-based glosses and I came to the conclusion that I will not use it after all. I mean, I really like it -- in many aspects it is much better than table-based solution, because it seems to me to be more structure oriented (the relation between original and English text is somehow maintained), but there are reasons which made me to decide to continue on table-based path: 1) not really that important -- I am really worried what happens to me when I will write non-Asian texts with the Asisan languages support switched on. Yes, I could investigate it further, whether there are some possible problems, and yes I have no evidence against it. 2) Formatting of “the second line” -- when you look at the real world examples on <ftp://tug.ctan.org/pub/tex-archive/macros/latex/contrib/gb4e/gb4e-doc.pdf> (for example, page 6 bottom) you will find that the second line could have rich formatting (subscript in this case). Obviously results of field cannot be richly formatted in some parts of the field content. 3) Well, yes, compatibility with the Word would be nice as well -- Certainly, M$ Word probably supports Ruby somehow, but what would happen to Rubies when it would be converted from ODF to M$ format (be it the current one, or M$ Office 12). Thanks for the idea anyway, Matej -- Matej Cepl, http://www.ceplovi.cz/matej/blog/ GPG Finger: 89EF 4BC6 288A BF43 1BAB 25C3 E09F EF25 D964 84AC [...] an old man recently told me "Son, I've learned something new every day of my life, and I'm getting damn tired of it." --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
