Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
2. it is easier to toggle boldface. A simple operation (usually C-B)
can switch bold face on and off even for a sentense with mixed normal
and bold text. It is much more difficult to work with inset charstyle.
The 'backspace at the beginning of the inset' trick looks more like
magic.
This is a very good point, but unrelated to the bold issue. The people
who push for font as an inset should put their code where their mouth is
and make the interface usable (José?).
Let me just say that, having entered this discussion late---I see it's
been going on for rather a while---I was somewhat confused about what
the debate was about. So, to clarify my own previous position, I rather
agree with the point of view being pushed here, that semantic and
physical markup should be clearly separated; that semantic markup should
be done via charstyles; and that physical markup should be discouraged.
And yes, we do need a solution to the problem to which Bo points.
That said, I do still think that the mechanisms for physical markup are
somewhat broken. The existing Text Styles dialog, in particular, does
not work properly; the boundaries of the physical markup can be nearly
impossible to discover; etc, etc. So I think the font-as-inset question
is independent of the semantic--physical question, and it seems to me
the two get mixed up.
Richard
--
==================================================================
Richard G Heck, Jr
Professor of Philosophy
Brown University
http://frege.brown.edu/heck/
==================================================================
Get my public key from http://sks.keyserver.penguin.de
Hash: 0x1DE91F1E66FFBDEC
Learn how to sign your email using Thunderbird and GnuPG at:
http://dudu.dyn.2-h.org/nist/gpg-enigmail-howto
