On Thursday 03 April 2008 14:18:01 Bo Peng wrote: > > I guess I don't see this, quite. Sure, you can specify the the distant > > file when you choose it, but once it is embedded, the distant file has > > nothing to do with it. It can only be extracted to a subdirectory (if > > you're still doing a general unbundling, as opposed to selective > > unbundling, as Andre suggested). So you might as well have copied it to > > that location for them. > > I forgot to mention one important trick: if the files are there so > there is no need to overwrite, unbundling would succeed and they do > not have to be unbundled to the document directory. This is because we > compare file checksum before we extract. > > You know that I desperately want to embed such files (My work depends > on this) so I am willing to compromise a little bit. The point here is > that my windows co-authors can work in bundled mode, and when I get my > file back, I can unbundle the file to its original location > successfully. In the rare case when these external files change, I can > 'update from external file' and unbundle.
With all the due respect Bo, I know that you are competent python programmer. What you are proposing can be done in python without ever using the lyx gui. It should be possible to create a python library to handle lyx bundled files in the way you want with a neutral lyx implementation. I have been thinking about the way we need to deal with the lyx bundles in lyx2lyx. It should be easy to define an api and export that for power users. My view is that lyx files should be totally amnesic regarding the embedded files origin, about its base name, if possible they should be able to retain their original with the external directory stripped. In order to do that we need a predictable name for the > Note that novice users do not have to know these. They just click ok > without knowing what they are doing, and the mentioned problem will be > resolved. I disagree, ignorance never is a solution. I can tell you that users are a lot more imaginative that you think (even more than I think). I am sorry but I simply don't buy this argument that has been proved wrong countless times. > Bo -- José Abílio
