Le samedi 29 octobre 2005 à 12:41 +0200, Giuseppe Bilotta a écrit :
> An obvious remark is that text in a foreign language is in
> that foreign language, full stop. It's highly dubious that
> you could have second thoughts ("hm, maybe this isn't
> Russian, maybe this is Japanese") and have such second
> thoughts consistently across all occurrences of that
> language.
Which means hard formatting like done with the macro is the right thing
to do in the langage case
> *However*, taking your example ("different font
> for Swedish text") is exactly the reason why it should
> nevertheless be part of an appropriate style, and not be
> applied manually (or macroly): if halfway through a document
> to decide, or otherwise need, to set all the foreign text
> in a different font (or with a different font property,
> typically in italic), you can of course change the macro,
> which will work for all the *future* text, but it won't
> change all the text you already typed in. This is *exactly*
> what styles were made for.
This is an argument for putting language conditionals in styles, not
making styles set language like nowadays. I understand what you'd like
OO.o to do but langage management is not a valid argument. Free style
mixing (with attributes that really belong in styles) is a valid
argument.
With free cascading styles you'd have a better workaround for languages
than now, since you'd be able to short-circuit the macro step but it
would still be a workaround. Just consider what happens if someone
changes the language in your style instead of just changing the
formatting attributes -> instant content loss
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
