Re: Should invisible imply intangible?

[Richard Stallman]

    I could agree to it but only in the case where the screen representation
    is really empty, so that both cursor positions are displayed in the same 
way.

That is the case we are talking about.

    On the other hand, if the text is replaced by ellipsis or by an image,
    it is very strange not to be able to position the cursor after the invisible
    text.

Images have nothing to do with this, because we're only talking about
the invisible property.  I agree that in the case of an ellipsis it is
right to allow point to be either before or after.  In that case, the
user can see the difference between the two positions, so it is not
confusing.

    I think it'd be an error because it's only desirable in some rare cases,
    and I suspect that those cases would be better served by explicitly
    using the `intangible' text property.

This discussion started by noting that buffer-invisible-spec cannot
control intangibility.  We need to get the same effect as intangible,
but controlled with buffer-invisible-spec or something like it.  I was
thinking of making invisible imply intangible, but you proposed to do
the job here instead.

Doing the job here is ok, but it has to work the right way, the same
way that invisible/intangible text works.

Would you please make this work?  I will do it myself if necessary,
but I really would rather be able to keep up with my other work.