On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 10:15:10AM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>>> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Andre> Personally, having the two logicaly positions (just before some > Andre> change/at the beginning of a change) is _the_ > > _the_ what?
... thing that annoys me most in the main text (well, apart from the general lack of easily accessible functions to jump around and S&R). And that's not because that's the natural way with the all-boxes approaches but because it's the way I think of the text markup. And not being sure whether I am inside or outside makes me uncomfortable. > We could have a solution where there is only one position in general, > but we have a lfun that switches to the other position (when relevant) > when needed. Of course there should be some visual indication of what > happens. This would be only a power user thing, so it needn't be very > discoverable. > > I did not chime in in the thread between John and Andre, in part > because we had a 24h network outage :(. However, I have to say that I > am not comfortable with andre's position... I know. > I really think that an application should be developed in the > UI-to-code direction, and not code-to-UI. Saying that, since a certain > data structure is sound then we should use it and then expose it to > the user is taking things backward IMO. But almost any UI can be provided on top of a flexible data structure. If your data structure is only geared towards a single UI, some UI quirks simply won't be fixable or some features are hard to implement because your data structure does not support it. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson or B. Franklin or both...)
