- From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 17:48:22 +0900
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: Paul Grosso <pgrosso@arbortext.com>, www-xml-linking-comments@w3.org, Daniel.Veillard@w3.org, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org
At 07:56 99/12/30 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote:
> "Martin J. Duerst" wrote:
>
> > - 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.
>
> I think you need to demonstrate that the majority of users want this
> bizarre behaviour. It means, if you select some text, and copy it, and
> past it, you no longer get that text - you get some complex, multiple
> amount of visually-reordered text which is unsuitable for further
> processing.
It may indeed in some cases be reordered. But you can avoid reordering
by surrounding the cut/past piece by some special symbols.
> I am having a hard time believing that this is what even a
> few users want, far less the majority.
I'm copying the i18n IG. I'm sure that somebody from the IG can
confirm that graphical selection is widely requested.
Actually, having a look at a Japanese version of Word 2000,
I find the following under Tools -> Options -> Right to Left:
Add control characters on cut and copy?
Cursor control:
Movement: Logical Visual
In general, as I said earlier, it seems to be difficult for
the average programmer/specifier, who is used very much to
think logically, to understand why/how somebody could prefer
to think more visually, and to prefer that the application
behave that way. But the fact that you don't understand it
doesn't mean that nobody else wants it.
Regards, Martin.
#-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, World Wide Web Consortium
#-#-# mailto:duerst@w3.org http://www.w3.org
Received on Thursday, 30 December 1999 04:10:00 UTC