> english. I do not do what we can do about that (moreover, big popups
> are a problem for some displays).
Understandable.
> Andre> 2. Layouts. I think this could be a good place to put in some
> Andre> export and probably even import information. E.g. in addition
> Andre> to LatexType and LatexName one could add a HtmlType and
> Andre> HtmlName. HtmlType corresponds to LatexType and HtmlName is the
> Andre> name of the tag to be created when exporting.
>
> The way we have chosen is a bit different: the docbook classe (which
> are probably good to output html, BTW) uses LatexName directly for
> this (we should think of a better name) but has OutputType set to
> DocBook. The idea is to have one class for each document type, because
> doing direct export to html from a latex class will be in general very
> difficult.
I can see that this is a complete different approach (more or less
orthogonal to what I was suggesting)
but am not quite sure how this would work once it is 'perfect'.
I try to describe my impression of the current philosophy, please
correct me if I am wrong:
,,If I want to have a DocBook document, I need DocBook layout.
I can convert anything to DocBook at anytime by changing the layout to
DocBook.
Every layout essentially has (exactly) two representations as 'file', 1. the
external .lyx, and 2. the 'native' format (most times .tex, but
sometimes .doc/whatever).
The internal format resembles the external .lyx format.
Changing layouts is internally more or less a 'no operation' since it is
done in the internal format only (by changing a tag or two).
Unknown styles are problematic when changing layouts a->b->a, but it is
no issue if I have a master document in layout a and do occasional
'exports' to the 'native format' of other layouts.``
If this is correct, 'Latex(Name|Type)' is very misleading, indeed,
as it only corresponds to 'native formats' close to Latex layouts...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz ......................... [EMAIL PROTECTED]
