Guenter Milde <mi...@users.berlios.de> writes: >> My goal is to implement the new tag OutputFormat in layout files, that >> would complement OutputType. However I'd like to do it right. > > Another useful case is the setting in a module. Instead of n >= 3 > "*-literate" layouts we could have a "literate" or "noweb" module.
Indeed. Actually, I already posted such a pair of modules and my goal is to make it work right. >> Then one would be able to override it: OutputFormat "sweave" comes to >> mind to support R. > > I would rather provide for extending the list of supported OutputFormats: > > [latex, docbook, noweb, sweave, lilypond-book, pst-pdf, ... ] > > actually every format that is known to LyX (but only modules where it > makes sense). What I have in mind is to allow any string in OutpuFormat. If the corresponding format is not known to LyX, then no export is possible. >> ?). "platex" seems to be a subformat like "pdflatex" is, but is there >> a pdfplatex, or does it only export to dvi? > > Export/View formats that cannot be generated via a coversion-chain from > the documents OutputFormat should be greyed out. Yes, like we do now. >> And there is of course the "xetex" case, which is yet another latex >> variation. I tend to think that if should be considered qs equivalent >> to pdflatex, but things are not as simple. > > XeTeX (and even pdflatex) could be implemented as module too. I do not see the point of doing that. > Actually, even the foo->latex step might be bypassed if there is an > alternative converter-chain to the end format. Agreed. > Then, e.g. "literate" (or "noweb", "cweb", "nuweb", "sweave", ....) can > remain an OutputType as long as you define a literate -> docbook > converter. These would not be OutputTypes, but OutputFormats. JMarc
