Bo Peng wrote: > > There is a way to introduce a bold button cleanly. But it includes > > removing emph and noun and replacing it with textit and textsc. > > I do not see why textit, em and charstyle Emph can not co-exist, and I > have no objection to use em instead of textit after textbf.
Because these are fundamentally different concepts (I keep repeating myself). You have referred to word processors such as msword or Ooo. Even those do separate the two concepts (here, I have to correct myself): They have only buttons for physical markup in the toolbars, namely bold, underline, italics (and sometimes small caps). We have *none* of those buttons in our toolbar, so if we are going to go that way, we have to go it to the end. > Under the Edit->Text Style memu, we can have > > 1. charstyles defined by layout files. They can be strong, emph, (not > available for 1.5.x) and for example \alert from beamer. > > 2. simple \textbf, \em and \textsc (or something else) > > 3. customized etc... If we gonna introduce the physical markup, then separate. Not under Edit->Text Style (because these are not character styles), but under a separate item (Edit->Font Shape, for instance). However, I think the character dialog is the right place. > > The same applies for the menus. We can introduce bold to the menus, but > > not together with noun and emph, but with textsc and textit. > > For toolbars, the boldface button can be \textbf for 1.5.x, and > \strong for 1.6.x. I disagree (see above). Jürgen
