Re: [Gramps-users] Changes to the Name

[Eero T. <eer...@ne...>]

Hi,

On Thursday 17 November 2005 00:01, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Although I'm one of the people wanting this underlined callname thing,
> > I'm not sure whether it's worth implementing.  This markup thing sounds
> > a bit complicated and I don't think it's very obvious from the UI.
>
> It definitely is worth implementing, I need it :)

Sorry, I meant "not sure whether it's worth implementing right now". 
I mean, this feature doesn't seem so straightforward and I think it
might need a bit more thought first. (see below)


> Non-UI-obviousness maybe is a good thing, as it does not interfere with
> Auntie Kate, but still gives the required features for those who need it

Ok.

> > Also, there comes a question of what kind of markup should be allowed
> > (bold, italic, underline), how they are ignored in sorting etc, how
> > they are output in reports & does user have any control over how it's
> > interpreted, and how it's saved to database.
>
> Sorting has to be adressed, of course. But isn't the sorting string an
> internal, constructed one anyways? Should be no problem skipping the
> markup chars.

It seems a bit funny to have this kind of a feature with a lot of
implications (to UI, database data, lists, reports etc) for just a single
field in Gramps.   Why not have it then in all the Gramps text fields?  :-)

Maybe there could then be also other markup "tags" too and a possibility for
advanced users (somehow) to tweak how they are represented in the reports...


> I'd suggest this feature is not advertised as "markup" but as "marking",
> i.e., not a layout feature but a data feature. Then we can use this
> information for e.g. this GEDCOM 5.5EL format that Udo Vogel found, if
> we ever want to export to that.


	- Eero