On Saturday 01 September 2007 03:14:11 Bo Peng wrote: > Because this feature more or less duplicates with embedding, and if we > decide to go with .lyz for lyx bundle format, .lyx will always be a > plain text file.
I think that the dos time is gone long ago and a lyx suffix should stand for lyx files no matter what the internal format used. The question is that anyone that changes the lyx file directly knows enough to know what to do. If (s)he does not know how to use file or any other mean to determine the file type then it is better not to do it. > > > 2. lyx2lyx support for embedding (Jose?) > > > a) get lyx and/or manifest version from zipped file? > > > b) unzip embedded file > > > c) copy embedded files to their original places. (Dangerous, not > > > sure what to do with files not in or under document directory). > > > > I think that you mean reverting to previous version here, right? > > Yes. OK. Note that I don't like the zipfile module, it is clunky and unpythonic. I think that there is another module a lot easier to work with. :-) > > a) and b) are immediate, my problem is what to do with c). If the process > > is done by lyx2lyx it will not be interactive so we must have a simple > > policy. > > Yes. That is why I say it is dangerous. I really do not know how to > handle the extraction of files outside of the document directory. I agree with you. Backporting is a last resort and not something we encourage people to do, it is commodity that we provide as bonus not as a normal feature, so I think that being safe here is the best thing to do. Regarding the feature I think that every paths inside the embedded file should be relative and inside the current dir. I am not sure it is wise to save the original path (for embedded component, for external paths that is not a problem) even for privacy reasons. After embedding we get a local copy so the original location becomes irrelevant. > Bo -- José Abílio
