Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> John Levon wrote:
>> 1) familiarity. This is how every other editor I'm familiar with works.
>
> This one is not an argument for me. Otherwise I'd still use MS Word.
I am 80% sure that the success of LyX is in its ability to mix
simplicity with power. Looking like word but not acting like word is a
plus.
>> 2) The existence of a style attribute does not affect how and where I
>> can select text
>
> This is a con for me. I want to select the whole charstyle
> automatically and not bother with micro selection.
I am abivalent on this one. When a character style is a noun, for
example, I like the fact that selection goes in one glob. After all,
one nice thing about selection in word is the way it selects full
words when it feels it should (I think it is one of the few automatic
things they got right).
OTOH, when it comes to setting large parts of text in a charstyle (and
assuming the we have the 3-box model), then I do not think this is
still the case. Assuming an example like what Helge proposed:
\emph{Sentence 1. Sentence 2.} Sentence 3.
I expect that I should be able to select sentences 2 and 3 to cut and
paste them. The block model is not as good for long text as for short
one.
>> 5) Line-wrapping looks and behaves naturally.
>
> Easily solved with the "one word per inset" approach or with the 3D
> inset. But this is just "look", this doesn't remove anything and is
> really not that important.
Look is everything, otherwise people would just use latex.
JMarc
