On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 01:37:17PM +0200, Dov Feldstern wrote: > Richard Heck wrote: > >Dov Feldstern wrote: > >>I agree very much with what JMarc has been saying about this issue: > >>although I like very much the idea of character styles / logical > >>markup, I don't think that insets are the right paradigm for > >>implementing this. > >But there's a point JMarc made along the way which isn't accounted here, > >and it needs to be, namely: There are two questions here: how charstyles > >(say) are implemented in the code, and how they appear to the user. The > >issues that have been raised have to do with how charstyles appear to > >the user. Whether they exist as insets in LyX isn't critical from that > >point of view. > > Certainly those are two different issues, I think that my arguments are > relevant to both of them, and I've given examples from both the UI and > the internal structure. Furthermore --- and this is one of the core > issues here --- my claim is that the internal structure should as > closely as possible match the UI / appearance to the user.
There is absolutely no need for that. If matching UI/internal structure makes sense fine. If not, then not. There is no need for the UI to dictate internal structure and vice-versa/ > Of course we *could* use insets internally, and make them appear to > the user as if they're character ranges --- but why? Insets are straightforward to implement. Font ranges are not. I recently had a look at our coding rules. "KISS" was and still is the first item... Andre'
