Difference between revisions of "Talk:Standard"
From BidiEdit
(Open issues) |
(→Open Issues) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
We also need to decide whether such a movement can be done in a way that will not be considered, in and on its own, destructive. | We also need to decide whether such a movement can be done in a way that will not be considered, in and on its own, destructive. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Visual display of logical caret === | ||
| + | We need to work out the correct algorithm to place (for display purposes) a logical cart on screen. | ||
Latest revision as of 18:53, 4 June 2016
Contents
Open Issues
Visual vs. Logical Selection
Logical selection is the norm today. This can get very confusing very quickly. Some think that a visual selection will work better. Pro reasons:
- Much less confusing.
- Very very predictable.
- With logical selection, there are occasions where the visual cues push you to move the mouse in the wrong direction to complete the operation you want to complete. This is true even if the end selection is unambiguous.
Con reasons:
- Not useful. In any case where visual and logical selections produce different results, it is the logical selection people want.
- Some features are unimplementable with visual selection
Moving characters in the logical buffer
Some rules in the standard call for changing the logical sequence of characters "unrelated" to the current operation. The details of the move need to be worked out.
We also need to decide whether such a movement can be done in a way that will not be considered, in and on its own, destructive.
Visual display of logical caret
We need to work out the correct algorithm to place (for display purposes) a logical cart on screen.
