Uwe Stöhr wrote: > That's not that easy as this could break the document compilation. So when > hyperref is used, we load babel before the user preamble without hyperref > behind it. So you have to adapt your preamble when you turn on/off > hyperref. This is extremely tricky as this affects many LaTeX-packages and > will surely lead to complaints.
This is what we do for jurabib already, and it works well. At least the people can decide: use the new feature (hyperref) and pay for it by having to change the preamble, or continue to use the old documents without being urged to rewrite them. As it is now, they have no choice. We hassle them to change their existing docs, whether they want to use hyperref or not. > Nevertheless, also for other packages you might load in the preamble it is > important to load babel before them as many rely on babel. Such as? > I mean, have a > look in the EmbeddedObjects manual what nasty hacks were needed to be able > to define things in the preamble, due the too late loading of babel. For example? > As Georg said, we should compare the advantages and disadvantages of the > current loading position, I haven't fount a drawback since this change is > in (since October last year), except of that you need to remove the manual > loading of babel in the preamble. This is a big issue for some people. And it breaks our aim to not ship a new version of LyX that will not compile old documents. For me, personally, this infringement of what I thought is our policy and guarantee to the users outweights any new feature addition. Look, hyperref might be a nice addition, and it might require the shifting of babel for the people that use it, as jurabib required it. But also accept that there are people that do not care a dime about hyperref and that do not want that their documents break just for the sake of a feature they do not need. The situation, as I see it, is the following: * the addition of hyperref requires that babel is being loaded before hyperref * there's no urgent need of changing the babel loading order in any other case * of course we could do it preventivly, but a preventive action is no suffucient reason to break documents. Ergo: change the loading order for hyperref, and leave the rest untouched, unless some real urgent need to change the order for the rest as well occurs, a reason that judges to break old documents. > Does anybody found a drawback instead of > this? But I have had so many hacks to use the be able to define things > because babel was loaded after the preamble, not only hyperref issues, but > also koma-script ones. Which KOMA-script issues? Jürgen
