On Friday 26 March 2004 04:51 am, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Kuba Ober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | On Thursday 25 March 2004 06:05 am, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >> >>>>> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> >> | > >> >> | Good remark. In this light it actually looks ok. > >> >> > >> >> OTOH, do we want it to be that easy to do non-logical markup? > >> > >> Andre> Well, given the existence of explicit font size/color/whatever > >> Andre> changes, this should qualify as lesser sin. > >> > >> This needn't be non-logical markup. The space could be amonf > >> smallskip/medskip/bigskip, which _is_ logical markup. > | > | And this is actually what I'd think it should be. It's the same > | concept as in mathed, where it goes through a list of math > | horizontal skips (\, \. etc.). > > Math is not text. > > And I am not sure that stuff that feels very natural in a math setting > should be used in a text setting. Hey! Let's mulitple spaces just > insert a large space. IMHO that is moving away from WYSIWYM and > towards manual typesetting and WYSIWYG.
Well, but the counterargument is that current macro support is rather cumbersome and sometimes you do have to have logical-yet-visual markup at hand. When/if macro become easier to use (I wish I had an idea about how a good implementation might look like -- I don't -- yet), that will be another story. Let's face it, there's nothing wrong with a need to insert a vertical skip of some sort -- it's frequently necessary, even in good typesetting practice. And about those multiple spaces - I guess it could be made for non-breaking space, but since I've never really used anything besides "\ " vel ctrl-space I'm neutral here. Kuba
