Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 11:55:39AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
One use case I can think of is a linguist wanting to mark individual
parts of a sentence. Certain words can be part of several such entities,
so overlapping might make sense there, and also the "artificial
splitting workaround" of the pure inset approach might not be really
feasible.
Why wouldn't the artifical splitting work? (Assuming the user
can be allowed to make a selection like that in the first place.)
Because at onw point of time I might be interested in, say, all "noun
phrases" in my document. I don't think it would be possible once
they are split in smaller parts.
I see.
A similiar example: one can define a style that automatically
add an index/glossary entry for whatever you mark. Could be useful for
things like "biological entity", "chemical name" and so on.
Of course we don't want to split such things.
bold, italic and underlines can fake partial overlap though, because
you won't notice if a bold/italic/underline interval is split up.
Right.
Well, basically we have to decide whether we want to support overlapping
ranges. If not, I think insets with 3box drawing is the way to go, if it
is I do not see a solution other then something near "ordered ranges".
Inset-based styles could ahave a flag indicating wether it is ok
to fake-split them or not. I.e. it is ok to split up "emph" as needed
because nobody ever wants an account of all "emph" stuff in his
document. But it is not ok to split up "noun" or "biological entity".
Helge Hafting
