Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:58:44PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
The attached tries to do this. The lower corners will be drawn
also when the cursor is just in front or behind the
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:58:44PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
The attached tries to do this. The lower corners will be drawn
also when the cursor is just in front or behind the
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 09:48:35AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:58:44PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
...
Hum just to be sure, did you try to
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 09:48:35AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:58:44PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:58:44PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
The attached tries to do this. The lower corners will be drawn
also when the cursor is just in front or behind the
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:58:44PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
The attached tries to do this. The lower corners will be drawn
also when the cursor is just in front or behind the
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 09:48:35AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:58:44PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >>> Martin Vermeer wrote:
...
> Hum just to be sure, did
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 09:48:35AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:58:44PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:44:48PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:42:35AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
...
1. There should be an Invisible geometry for charstyle insets, in which
they simply draw the text and
Martin Vermeer wrote:
The attached tries to do this. The lower corners will be drawn
also when the cursor is just in front or behind the inset.
Unfortunately this doesn't work right, because of the
way LyX renders stuff: if you move the cursor left or right,
nothing will get re-rendered. When
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
The attached tries to do this. The lower corners will be drawn
also when the cursor is just in front or behind the inset.
Unfortunately this doesn't work right, because of the
way LyX renders
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:58:44PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
The attached tries to do this. The lower corners will be drawn
also when the cursor is just in front or behind the inset.
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:58:44PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
The attached tries to do this. The lower corners will be drawn
also when the cursor is just in front or behind the inset.
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:44:48PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:42:35AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> >
> >> Richard Heck wrote:
...
> >>> 1. There should be an "Invisible" geometry for charstyle insets, in which
> >>> they simply
Martin Vermeer wrote:
The attached tries to do this. The lower corners will be drawn
also when the cursor is just in front or behind the inset.
Unfortunately this doesn't work right, because of the
way LyX renders stuff: if you move the cursor left or right,
nothing will get re-rendered. When
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
>
> > The attached tries to do this. The lower corners will be drawn
> > also when the cursor is just in front or behind the inset.
> > Unfortunately this doesn't work right, because of the
> > way LyX
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:58:44PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > Martin Vermeer wrote:
> >
> > > The attached tries to do this. The lower corners will be drawn
> > > also when the cursor is just in front or behind the
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 06:58:44PM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:56:59PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > Martin Vermeer wrote:
> >
> > > The attached tries to do this. The lower corners will be drawn
> > > also when the cursor is just in front or behind the inset.
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 01:09:44AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:22:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
The only thing I could ask for here, is to see the borders also when
the cursor is right in front of the inset, because the delete key
will delete the entire
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:12:28AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
The only thing I could ask for here, is to see the borders also when
the cursor is right in front of the inset, because the delete key
will delete the entire inset if used at that point. That is obvious if
the
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:52:41AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:22:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:09:11AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
Almost! A text with many charstyles is now much easier to read.
The only thing I could ask
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:15:39AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
Not if the chunk is larger than you'd might expect.
You're tying yourself up in knots precisely because you won't do the
right thing: delete the character in front of the cursor.
No. I usually want to delete entities when there are
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:15:39AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
Not if the chunk is larger than you'd might expect.
You're tying yourself up in knots precisely because you won't do the
right thing: delete the character in front of the cursor.
No. I usually want to delete
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:44:48PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:42:35AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
[...]
How about having insets normally invisible, but having the boundaries
appear
in some way whenever
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yep. I truly think we will never converge to an agreement, our views
are fundamentally different and there is nothing we can do. So what
about making this kind of things configurable?
This would be the worst solution.
JMarc
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:52:41AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:22:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:09:11AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
Almost! A text with many charstyles is now much easier to read.
The only thing I
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 05:32:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
I think John understand our point of view very well but he's playing the
devil's advocate.
Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
editing equations is like editing prose.
(I'd love to be able to
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:34:33PM +0200, Dov Feldstern wrote:
I actually agree with Andre' here, this would be good behavior for
*true* insets IMO.
Agreed, I think it's a nice solution to the delete a footnote problem,
with perhaps the change that it only applies if the inset is not
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 09:02:03AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I think John understand our point of view very well but he's playing the
devil's advocate.
Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
editing equations is like editing prose.
regards,
john
John Levon wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 05:32:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
I think John understand our point of view very well but he's playing the
devil's advocate.
Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
editing equations is like editing prose.
Well, I am
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:00:41PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
editing equations is like editing prose.
Well, I am a scientist and I often have the need to apply the same style
to some specific words. These words are
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 05:32:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 09:02:03AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I think John understand our point of view very well but he's playing the
devil's advocate.
Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:59:45PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
I think John understand our point of view very well but he's playing the
devil's advocate.
Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
editing equations is like editing prose.
You are not a
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 01:09:44AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:22:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > > > The only thing I could ask for here, is to see the borders also when
> > > > the cursor is right in front of the inset, because the "delete" key
> > > > will
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:12:28AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > > > > The only thing I could ask for here, is to see the borders also when
> > > > > the cursor is right in front of the inset, because the "delete" key
> > > > > will delete the entire inset if used at that point. That is obvious
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:52:41AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:22:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:09:11AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > > Almost! A text with many charstyles is now much easier to read.
> > > >
> > > > The only
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:15:39AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > Not if the chunk is larger than you'd might expect.
>
> You're tying yourself up in knots precisely because you won't do the
> right thing: delete the character in front of the cursor.
No. I usually want to delete entities when
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:15:39AM +0100, John Levon wrote:
Not if the chunk is larger than you'd might expect.
You're tying yourself up in knots precisely because you won't do the
right thing: delete the character in front of the cursor.
No. I usually want to delete
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:44:48PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:42:35AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
[...]
How about having insets normally invisible, but having the boundaries
appear
in some way whenever
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yep. I truly think we will never converge to an agreement, our views
> are fundamentally different and there is nothing we can do. So what
> about making this kind of things configurable?
This would be the worst solution.
JMarc
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 06:52:41AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:22:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:09:11AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
Almost! A text with many charstyles is now much easier to read.
The only thing I
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 05:32:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > I think John understand our point of view very well but he's playing the
> > devil's advocate.
>
> Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
> editing equations is like editing prose.
(I'd love to be
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:34:33PM +0200, Dov Feldstern wrote:
> I actually agree with Andre' here, this would be good behavior for
> *true* insets IMO.
Agreed, I think it's a nice solution to the "delete a footnote" problem,
with perhaps the change that it only applies if the inset is not
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 09:02:03AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> I think John understand our point of view very well but he's playing the
> devil's advocate.
Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
editing equations is like editing prose.
regards,
john
John Levon wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 05:32:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
I think John understand our point of view very well but he's playing the
devil's advocate.
Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
editing equations is like editing prose.
Well, I am
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 07:00:41PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >>Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
> >>editing equations is like editing prose.
>
> Well, I am a scientist and I often have the need to apply the same style
> to some specific words. These
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 05:32:42PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 09:02:03AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>
> > I think John understand our point of view very well but he's playing the
> > devil's advocate.
>
> Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 08:59:45PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > > I think John understand our point of view very well but he's playing the
> > > devil's advocate.
> >
> > Not at all. I genuinely don't understand how anybody could think that
> > editing equations is like editing prose.
>
>
Juergen Spitzmueller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BTW Word's side panel is not too bad as a model.
The office 2007 UI blog posts I referred to earlier explain how the
proliferation of side panels in word meant that they just scrapped
everything and built a new UI.
JMarc
Richard Heck wrote:
Without meaning to prejudge the question whether CharStyles should be
insets, here's my list of things that ought to be done if they are
going to stay that way. They are addressed specifically to what Abdel
was calling the look and feel aspect of charstyles, which are in
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:42:35AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
Without meaning to prejudge the question whether CharStyles should be
insets, here's my list of things that ought to be done if they are
going to stay that way. They are addressed specifically to what Abdel
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:42:35AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
Without meaning to prejudge the question whether CharStyles should be
insets, here's my list of things that ought to be done if they are
going to stay that way. They are addressed
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:44:48PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:42:35AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
Without meaning to prejudge the question whether CharStyles should be
insets, here's my list of things that ought
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:09:11AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
Almost! A text with many charstyles is now much easier to read.
The only thing I could ask for here, is to see the borders also when
the cursor is right in front of the inset, because the delete key
will delete the entire
Helge Hafting wrote:
The only thing I could ask for here, is to see the borders also when
the cursor is right in front of the inset, because the delete key
will delete the entire inset if used at that point. That is obvious if
the frame is there, not so if it isn't.
I'd prefer if it didn't do
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:22:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
The only thing I could ask for here, is to see the borders also when
the cursor is right in front of the inset, because the delete key
will delete the entire inset if used at that point. That is obvious if
the frame is
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:44:48PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:42:35AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
Without meaning to prejudge the question whether CharStyles should be
insets, here's my list of things that ought
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:22:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:09:11AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
Almost! A text with many charstyles is now much easier to read.
The only thing I could ask for here, is to see the borders also when
the cursor is right in
Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW Word's side panel is not too bad as a model.
The office 2007 UI blog posts I referred to earlier explain how the
proliferation of side panels in word meant that they just scrapped
everything and built a new UI.
JMarc
Richard Heck wrote:
Without meaning to prejudge the question whether CharStyles should be
insets, here's my list of things that ought to be done if they are
going to stay that way. They are addressed specifically to what Abdel
was calling the "look and feel" aspect of charstyles, which are
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:42:35AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Richard Heck wrote:
> >
> >Without meaning to prejudge the question whether CharStyles should be
> >insets, here's my list of things that ought to be done if they are
> >going to stay that way. They are addressed specifically to
Martin Vermeer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:42:35AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Richard Heck wrote:
Without meaning to prejudge the question whether CharStyles should be
insets, here's my list of things that ought to be done if they are
going to stay that way. They are addressed
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:44:48PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:42:35AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> >
> >>Richard Heck wrote:
> >>
> >>>Without meaning to prejudge the question whether CharStyles should be
> >>>insets, here's my list of
On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:09:11AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > Almost! A text with many charstyles is now much easier to read.
> >
> > The only thing I could ask for here, is to see the borders also when
> > the cursor is right in front of the inset, because the "delete" key
> > will delete
Helge Hafting wrote:
The only thing I could ask for here, is to see the borders also when
the cursor is right in front of the inset, because the "delete" key
will delete the entire inset if used at that point. That is obvious if
the frame is there, not so if it isn't.
I'd prefer if it didn't do
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:22:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > > The only thing I could ask for here, is to see the borders also when
> > > the cursor is right in front of the inset, because the "delete" key
> > > will delete the entire inset if used at that point. That is obvious if
> > >
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:44:48PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 10:42:35AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> >
> >>Richard Heck wrote:
> >>
> >>>Without meaning to prejudge the question whether CharStyles should be
> >>>insets, here's my list of
On Thu, Oct 04, 2007 at 11:22:01PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 05, 2007 at 12:09:11AM +0300, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> > > Almost! A text with many charstyles is now much easier to read.
> > >
> > > The only thing I could ask for here, is to see the borders also when
> > > the cursor
Without meaning to prejudge the question whether CharStyles should be
insets, here's my list of things that ought to be done if they are going
to stay that way. They are addressed specifically to what Abdel was
calling the look and feel aspect of charstyles, which are in principle
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:15:52PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
4. Inset dissolving should be more intuitive. There should be a menu
item Remove charstyle---it doesn't have to be called that---that
dissolves the current (innermost) inset. Maybe there should also be a
I believe you can do
John Levon wrote:
4. Inset dissolving should be more intuitive. There should be a menu
item Remove charstyle---it doesn't have to be called that---that
dissolves the current (innermost) inset. Maybe there should also be a
I believe you can do that simply by setting the style combo box back
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
John Levon wrote:
4. Inset dissolving should be more intuitive. There should be a menu
item Remove charstyle---it doesn't have to be called that---that
dissolves the current (innermost) inset. Maybe there should also be a
I believe you can do that simply
Richard Heck wrote:
5. Charstyle drawing shouldn't mess up line breaking the way it does
now. The insets get drawn as if they are single characters, so you end
up with:
This issome
text. This issome
text.
Richard Heck wrote:
Yes, none would work fine if we had such a combo box (which we don't
yet). But I'd also like to have change to ... rather than having to
dissolve and re-apply. This is harder to do with a combo box, since you
may haven't wanted to insert a new inset within the existing
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:37:57PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
John Levon wrote:
4. Inset dissolving should be more intuitive. There should be a menu
item Remove charstyle---it doesn't have to be called that---that
dissolves the current (innermost) inset. Maybe
Martin Vermeer wrote:
I think the combo box is a great idea. None should indeed just
dissolve the current inset (and thus not exist in top level text).
We have currently an LFUN_INSET_DISSOLVE ... do we need a separate
one for charstyles only?
In the top level text (i.e. if the cursor is not
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
I see. However, we might think about a panel solution (as in OOs, Word
2003 and InDesign), where you could have a button change to. At least
the former two have a combox and a panel (for the more complex tasks), so
it's not necessarily redundant to have both.
I
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 07:45:32PM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
I think the combo box is a great idea. None should indeed just
dissolve the current inset (and thus not exist in top level text).
We have currently an LFUN_INSET_DISSOLVE ... do we need a separate
Martin Vermeer wrote:
But it wouldn't do anything?
No. If you have none and select none, you still have none in the end ;-)
(it's just like selecting Standard [paragraph] when you are in Standard
already)
Jürgen
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I stand corrected: they don't.
Well Word 2002 (XP) has a side panel in Format-Font
Yes, but no combo.
Jürgen
BTW Word's side panel is not too bad as a model.
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I stand corrected: they don't.
Well Word 2002 (XP) has a side panel in Format-Font
Hum, correction, that is Format-Styles and Formatting.
Yes, but no combo.
I have both here.
Abdel.
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
I see. However, we might think about a panel solution (as in OOs, Word
2003 and InDesign), where you could have a button change to. At least
the former two have a combox and a panel (for the more complex tasks), so
it's not necessarily
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I have both here.
For char styles? Interesting.
Jürgen
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I have both here.
For char styles?
For what MS calls styles yes but are just handy shortcuts to set
predefined font attributes.
Abdel.
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 08:35:44PM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Martin Vermeer wrote:
But it wouldn't do anything?
No. If you have none and select none, you still have none in the end ;-)
(it's just like selecting Standard [paragraph] when you are in Standard
already)
Jürgen
Martin Vermeer wrote:
But then it would be logically consistent to have the combo box default
to replace when inside a charstyle.
I'm not sure.
Clicking the same charstyle type
as the one you're in then also becomes a no-op.
This should be so, yes.
Jürgen
Without meaning to prejudge the question whether CharStyles should be
insets, here's my list of things that ought to be done if they are going
to stay that way. They are addressed specifically to what Abdel was
calling the "look and feel" aspect of charstyles, which are in principle
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:15:52PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> 4. Inset dissolving should be more intuitive. There should be a menu
> item "Remove charstyle"---it doesn't have to be called that---that
> dissolves the current (innermost) inset. Maybe there should also be a
I believe you can
John Levon wrote:
>> 4. Inset dissolving should be more intuitive. There should be a menu
>> item "Remove charstyle"---it doesn't have to be called that---that
>> dissolves the current (innermost) inset. Maybe there should also be a
>
> I believe you can do that simply by setting the style combo
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
John Levon wrote:
4. Inset dissolving should be more intuitive. There should be a menu
item "Remove charstyle"---it doesn't have to be called that---that
dissolves the current (innermost) inset. Maybe there should also be a
I believe you can do that simply
Richard Heck wrote:
> 5. Charstyle drawing shouldn't mess up line breaking the way it does
> now. The insets get drawn as if they are single characters, so you end
> up with:
> This issome
> text. This issome
> text.
>
Richard Heck wrote:
> Yes, "none" would work fine if we had such a combo box (which we don't
> yet). But I'd also like to have "change to ..." rather than having to
> dissolve and re-apply. This is harder to do with a combo box, since you
> may haven't wanted to insert a new inset within the
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:37:57PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote:
> Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> >John Levon wrote:
> >
> >>>4. Inset dissolving should be more intuitive. There should be a menu
> >>>item "Remove charstyle"---it doesn't have to be called that---that
> >>>dissolves the current
Martin Vermeer wrote:
> I think the combo box is a great idea. "None" should indeed just
> dissolve the current inset (and thus not exist in top level text).
> We have currently an LFUN_INSET_DISSOLVE ... do we need a separate
> one for charstyles only?
In the top level text (i.e. if the cursor
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> I see. However, we might think about a panel solution (as in OOs, Word
> 2003 and InDesign), where you could have a button "change to". At least
> the former two have a combox and a panel (for the more complex tasks), so
> it's not necessarily redundant to have both.
On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 07:45:32PM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Martin Vermeer wrote:
>
> > I think the combo box is a great idea. "None" should indeed just
> > dissolve the current inset (and thus not exist in top level text).
> > We have currently an LFUN_INSET_DISSOLVE ... do we need a
Martin Vermeer wrote:
> But it wouldn't do anything?
No. If you have none and select none, you still have none in the end ;-)
(it's just like selecting Standard [paragraph] when you are in Standard
already)
Jürgen
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>> I stand corrected: they don't.
>
> Well Word 2002 (XP) has a side panel in Format->Font
Yes, but no combo.
Jürgen
BTW Word's side panel is not too bad as a model.
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I stand corrected: they don't.
Well Word 2002 (XP) has a side panel in Format->Font
Hum, correction, that is Format->Styles and Formatting.
Yes, but no combo.
I have both here.
Abdel.
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
I see. However, we might think about a panel solution (as in OOs, Word
2003 and InDesign), where you could have a button "change to". At least
the former two have a combox and a panel (for the more complex tasks), so
it's not necessarily
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
