Re: facemenu-unlisted-faces

[tomas]

On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 10:14:17AM +0200, Sascha Wilde wrote:
> "Drew Adams" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> I haven't read the whole thread, so please forgive me if what I'm
> going to write is redundant...
> 
> [...]
> > FWIW - I never argued that anything should be bulletproof or that anything
> > shouldn't be changeable. My argument was that applying a text property (such
> > as boldness) to text is conceptually simpler and closer to what newbies are
> > used to than is applying a face to text. That's all.
> 
> I think I'm getting your point and I think you are right, that that's
> the way many (most?) people do WYSIWYG text formatting these days.
> But I also think, that this is the wrong way to do it, and that we
> shouldn't encourage it in any way.
> 
> Edited text should be marked up semantically, not by means of concrete
> visual properties.

[further arguments towards this elided]

FWIW, modern text programs (yes, even the one with the "W" on its name)
all try to coax the user into a more semantical markup. So yes, I think
it makes sense to try to seduce users into that way of thinking. Making
"visual markup" *the* obvious choice seems to be the wrong way.

regards
-- tomás

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature