On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, John Weiss wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 1999 at 04:05:30PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > >>>>> "Allan" == Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Allan> * .layout file creation/management tools - a LaTeX-to-layout
> > Allan> parser would be ideal - otherwise a GUI tool for maintaining
> > Allan> layout files. The description of this tool was essentially a
> > Allan> generalised version of Martins Tcl/tk tool for use with his
> > Allan> neoprene.cls
> >
> > In the latest LaTeX release, the News file says:
> >
> > --------
> > \section{Coming soon}
> >
> > Major work on a new class file structure to support flexible
> > designs is well under way; some of this work will be presented at the
> > TUG'99 conference in Vancouver, Canada. With a bit of luck much of
> > this work could be ready for integration into the next release---so
> > watch this space!
> > ----------
> >
> > This is probably what we are looking for, instead of hacking our own
> > class...
>
> We'd only need to parallel the results of the TUG'99 work in a
> *.layout-file generator. (I've been thinking about such a thing for a
> while, now.)
That's right John, I seem to have confused JMarc with my reference to the
neoprene classes. I was simply saying the layout generator/editor could
look something like Martins tool (but for .layouts not for .clses).
> > Allan> * The idea of a scripting language received reasonable support
> > Allan> although quite a few were worried about the possibility of
> > Allan> macro-viruses.
> >
> > I am too. I'm not really for scripts in documents.
>
> Isn't the purpose of scripting for use in the .layout files or
> something similar? I.e. LyX modularity and extensibility outside of
> the LyX kernel?
Yes, on both counts (smart .layout files and extending LyX's capabilities
-- think plugins). But someone somewhere is likely to argue that they
should be able to incorporate such an extension into a document -- or to
have the ability to bundle local extensions with a document to share with
others. And thus we're faced with a potential macro-virus issue.
If we add the ability to handle .tar.gz document bundles should we also
provide facilities for managing the addition/retrieval of custom scripts
(ie. ones not included with the LyX distribution) to the bundle?
I'm not opposed to adding them to such a bundle -- after all any user can
run tar and gzip themselves to create such a bundle -- but we should keep
them out of the documents themselves. The problem then is getting user
permission to use the bundled script. This is a problem because it
ulimately requires a user either understand the script or trust the
author. Ultimately, I think most users would just say "use it" and hope
for the best.
Hmmm, maybe we (I?) just need a better idea of what we can do with
scripts. Layouts are an obvious candidate. Extensions for alternate
spell-checkers or adding grammar checkers is another. Mail merge? What
else are people thinking of doing with scripts?
Allan. (ARRae)
