Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 06:39:14PM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
The difficulty is that, if you're already in the inset, you might be
wanting to apply another one. How do you distinguish that from changing
the inset type (which is the most natural thing).
Some thoughts: Say I have a charstyle <foo>hello world</foo>.
* If I select "hello" and select "bar" from the combo, the result would be a
nested construct "<foo><bar>hello</bar> world</foo>".
Yes.
* If I want to get rid of "foo", I select "hello world" and select "none"
from the combo (which "dissolves" the inset)
No need to select... just be inside the inset to be dissolved.
* If I select "hello" and chose "none", the result would be "hello<foo>
world</foo>".
* If I select "o wo" and select "none", the expected result would
be "<foo>hell</foo>o wo<foo>rld</foo>". This might be tricky to implement,
but it's needed.
Don't think so. If you want this, use dissolve-select-foo-select-foo.
(IOW you shouldn't have created the original charstyle in the first
place. Second time around you'll be wiser :)
* I'm not sure yet what should happen if you select "hello world" and
chose "bar". It might be expected to get <foo><bar>hello world</bar></foo>,
and this should be possible. OTOH some people might expect (for some
specific insets) that foo is replaced by "bar", i.e. "<bar>hello
world</bar>". But in the end, they might to reset the inset first, or we
define some "mutually exclusive" types of insets (the math color problem).
Depends on how big the selection is, does it include <foo> ... </foo>.
The nice thing with an inset is that _this case_ is never ambiguous.
Does this make sense?
I understand it (I think), but disagree. This is not semantic mark-up.
"None" is not a semantic thing and we shouldn't pretend it is.
"None" might also be confusing in the case of nested insets.
Perhaps the entry should reflect the innermost inset, i.e.
"no emph" if the cursor is inside emph that in turn is inside
something else. Then you see _what_ you're about to undo.
Helge Hafting
