On Sat, Sep 01, 2007 at 04:30:47PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > José Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> 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. > > You are forcing for no good reason people to use a complicated python > binding (you know, the-one-that-nobody-ever-saw) to make the simplest > modification on a LyX file, but you are not telling what the reason > is. Unix is about simple and predictable things, and I think that LyX > should keep that. I do not know of _any_ format that may or may not be > compressed. > > Telling users "you are not supposed to understand how it works, use > our sort-of-proprietary bindings instead" is not the correct message. > I often read people praising the "simple, text only" format of LyX, > and we seem to try to use any possible mean to make .lyx file > impossible to handle with the usual swiss army knife tools. > > > 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. > > At lot of people who do not understand the .lyx format, appreciate to > be able to change \alpha to \beta throughout the file.
Or something I personally used more often to checke whether there's still some \omega hidden anywhere in the file even though I tried to replace it mytself, or that variables are mentioned at least twice (or why else would I introduce one?) .lyx a text is nice. When I think about it, we might as well have the 'embedded' feature and still keep a mostly readable format by storing the embedded stuff inline, non-ASCII stuff as base64 or such. Andre'
