- From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 11:25:16 +0900
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org, Daniel.Veillard@w3.org
Removed the 'chairs' list from the cc. At 12:26 1999/12/22 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote: > "Martin J. Duerst" wrote: > > As far as user preference is concerned, it seems that using > > graphical selection (setting two points and selecting all the > > text that is visually in between these two points) is more > > common. > > To distinguish these cases, we need to consider bidi otherwise they are > identical. Of course. > Please demonstrate that visual selection is "more common" than logical > selection in a reasonable sampling of bidi-enabled editors, > wordprocessors or browsers of your choice. My impression is quite the > reverse. Sorry, but I said that it is the more common user preference, not that it is more commonly implemented. In terms of implementation complexity, there are more or less three steps: - Implement something that looks like graphical selection on screen, but is actually logical selection. This is what you get when not thinking anything about bidi as a special case; it is obviously highly confusing and inappropriate, and therefore you don't see any products that do that. - Implement logical selection, showing discontinuous parts on the screen as selected. This is easy to implement because you just have to change the display logic. - Implement graphical selection, managing multiple selections internally. This is hardest to implement. Even if the majority of the users prefer it, it's not that surprising that the majority of tools doesn't implement it. Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, World Wide Web Consortium #-#-# mailto:duerst@w3.org http://www.w3.org
Received on Sunday, 26 December 1999 22:28:48 UTC