Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Angus> Actually, what you said is that having a single > Angus> inset that was able to handle any 'external' data > Angus> (ie InsetExternal) would result in a UI something > Angus> like that of PowerPoint where a single dialog > Angus> controls the input of many, conceptually > Angus> different, 'external's.
> Ah yes! > Angus> Or something like that. > No, that was perfect, you manage to reproduce my thought with a > great fidelity :) > Angus> John's suggestion was to have the Graphics dialog > Angus> also connected to ControlExternal. Ie, two dialogs > Angus> resulting in the input/manipulation of a single Inset. > Right. > Angus> I can see the argument for, but I can also see the > Angus> argument against. I also think that this is a second > Angus> step. > It depends when we plan to do the second step. If it is in 1.5, then > people will have time to get pissed off :) As always, life is a little complicated. The only reason to have two dialogs is to 1. Get rid of that combox (XFig, Raster, Chess, Date) etc when we know that we want to insert a graphic. However, XFig, Raster, VectorGraphic, Tgif, Dia, ... are all 'graphic' formats that may or may not produce different latex output. Eg, \input or \includegraphics. Eg2 Raster images can be converted to png format for pdflatex whilst VectorGraphic should be converted to pdf. So, the need for the combox remains even for 'graphic' files, unless we 'pollute' the calling menu Insert->XFig, Insert->Raster etc. 2. Disable (rotate, scale, crop) transformations when the inset doesn't support them. But, once the combox choice has been made, we know which transformations are allowed as they are part of the ExternalTemplate definition. So, we can disable on-the-fly. Angus ... and before you ask, there is no VectorGraphic template, but it is probably the thing to have for PostScript/PDF images.
