Am Mon, 10 Aug 2020 08:24:56 +0200 schrieb Daniel <[email protected]>: > Attached is a chart of LyX font sizes. Does anyone else find it slightly > confusing that LyX uses two different naming schemes (in addition to > LaTeX)? Maybe some historic reason? If possible, I suggest to go for > only one naming scheme. > > I guess the LaTeX naming scheme for large font sizes is a bit > non-descriptive (using capitals to indicate comparatives/superlatives). > So, I guess that is why there is a deviation from LaTeX. I am still not > fully sure that it is a good idea to use different names because people > will have to remember two different schemes instead of one.
LyX is _not_ latex. It describes the font sizes for a variety of output
formats. Besides, the GUI is translatable. Only the English version would
suit your needs.
We do not expect our users are latex experts.
> But insofar as the more descriptive names should stay, I suggest to
> match Gui and LyX names in the following way (which actually helps to
> create less of a rift between LaTeX and LyX):
>
> - "Huger" (Gui name) instead of "Giant" (LyX name) because it matches
> better the LaTeX naming (\Huge).
>
> - Gui/LaTeX names for smaller font sizes because they are more
> descriptive, i.e. "Footnotesize" and "Scriptsize" (LyX name) instead of
> "Smaller" and "Smallest" (Gui name).
>
> I guess the latter needs some argument: while there is no match of
> sectioning sizes to large sizes because they depend on the class,
> "footnotesize" and "scriptsize" match the respective sizes in classes
> (as far as I know). So, it's helpful to know that if one wants to match
> other elements in the text.
Kornel
pgpDNMYMYixAS.pgp
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP
-- lyx-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
