Am Sonntag, 22. Oktober 2006 10:17 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes: > Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Am Samstag, 21. Oktober 2006 19:36 schrieb Lars Gullik Bjønnes: > | > Discussions are made and concluded in the kitchen, those not able to > | > get out of the living room get no say. > | > Espeically not if they does not help with providing solutions instead > | > of problems. > | > | Why should we provide a solution when you tell us several times to ignore > | latex limitations and it is announced that no solution will be > | allowed? > > We should ignore latex limitations in the core.
Agreed. > All latex specific > handling should be done on output. You can probably tell me what 'output' is and what Paragraph::Pimpl::simpleTeXSpecialChars does if it does not output? > | You should know both Jürgen and me well enough to understand that we are > | not going to simply demand solutions without helping to find it. > > So far no solutions has been proposed. > (Except the one below and the one that we put in.) You do not get my point. Please read my sentence above again. > | For information I attach here the patch I was working on yesterday before > | the freeze announcement. It already works for the case where you have only > | one encoding in the document. I also had an idea how to treat multiple > | encodings that would need a similar amount of changes. Then you would need > | to add an utf8 encoding to the list (and all the numbers in lib/encoding > | can probably be removed), some error handling for the case where iconv > | fails, and then you can use every encoding you could use in 1.4 + utf8. > > A native tex encoding would be great. Then we would not need to handle > inputenc at all, just provide the correct packages to get access to > fonts and char commands. Yes, that would be great, but we know that it is currently not possible. > I fear that doing the explicit > encodings as below we are only able to export a very small subset of > what lyx can show on screen (and store internally) Indeed. But doing the explicit encodings does not prevent us from doing more sophisticated things in a second step, and it is how LaTeX currently works. > I am not quite sure that I like the generalization of the utf8 facet, > perhaps creating a base facet and explicit facets for the other > encodings would be better. Feel free to do so. I don't care much. I thought this was the most simple way. Georg
