On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:27:05 +0200 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I agree with that. Just let people choose what they want. Font > > attribute should not become insets and people should not be forced to > > use charstyle if they really want to use Font attribute. > > But there are two different things: > * semantic vs explicit marking > * font-like extent versus inset. Yes, I understand that. Two different things. > The first one is the one that counts. The second one is an > implementation issue. Chartstyles could have been implemented as part > of font setting. It is a design choice. And I happen to think (not > that it matters much, so I ma going to shut up on this issue too) that > the inset implementation is not ready (but the solutions are not obvious). And I would maintain that this is a _perceived_ non-readiness mostly -- to people that are 'indoctrinated' by the font attribute way of doing things. Most of the things you want to do that you can do with fonts, you shouldn't even _want_ to do with charstyles. Like you shouldn't want to use ERT, or build a section header using large+bold and a number prefix. (1.5 is special though) > JMarc
