"instanton"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> JMark,
>
>> Who are you to decide that they appreciate variation? Let them choose
>> whether they do!
Hello,
First, I am sorry if my sentence above seemed a bit definitive to you.
It was intended as a joke, and a way to concede Juergen's point about
the need for variation...
> These extra document classes depends on CJK implicitly which means
> that one needs not add \usepackage{CJK} in the preamble and also
> needs not to put \begin{CJK}{GBK}{} after \begin{document} and
> \end{CJK} before \end{document}. These document classes are much
> more popular among Chinese users than using the standard
> documentclasses with the aid of CJK, because better sectioning and
> numbering systems are implemented in the cct and ctex series of
> classes.
>
> Therefore, I strongly suggest that LyX should remove all the hard
> codes which explicitly refers to the use of CJK packages and only
> takes care that the correct Chinese characters can be
> imported/exported with appropriate encodings. If this to be the case
> we can make our own .layout files to make use of any of the
> above-mentioned cct or ctex series of classes.
This is very interesting indeed. I think we should keep the two ways
of working with CJK. The classes you describe could have a
Provides CJK
line that would take care of not outputing \usepackage{CJK} and, more
importantly, control the use of the extra uses of the CJK environment.
However, I am not sure of one thing: do these different classes use
different fonts/encoding?
JMarc
