"Bo Peng" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > This is not how it is in my work. There are no "main authors" in the >> > collaborative work I do. >> >> +1 >> >> We shall not restrict the implementation in terms of one particular >> use case. The two authors could be me (at home and work), for example. > > Please provide your answer to all questions raised on that thread if > you are going to endorse Richard's proposal.
You mean I am not allowing to chime in at all, then? The thread is quite extensive... > Briefly speaking, Ricahrd's proposal first exaggerated the problem > by forcing the unbundling of .lyx file (whereas I argue here that > unbundling is not always needed), and proposed a radical solution > that copies all embedded files to a directory under the document > directory. This leads to ugliness such as cleanup of an embed > directory, and difficulties in opening a file under a readonly > directory. As I stated somewhere else, I'd like a solution where embedding is separated from compression. Embedding would be 'document as a directory), while compression would be just compression (of single file or directory). > I have stated in another thread that embedding files with > absolute-path has many benefits, and the current solution is almost > good enough, and getting rid of the embedding editing mode > altogether because of this problem is hard to justify. Concerning out-of-tree files, deciding that they should not be bundled is IMO the cleanest and simplest solution. This gives us a clear model to work with. Note that these are completely uninformed thoughts (I admit I have not read the whole thread). JMarc
