Hi Uwe, On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Uwe Stöhr <uwesto...@web.de> wrote: > As most of us agreed that eLyXer should be integrated, the following needs > to be done: > > 1. the license of eLyXer need to be uniform with LyX's license (GPL v2 not > v3) > 2. eLyXer should get a more explicit name like lyx2html > 3. we need to find a suitable location, under > lib/scripts/lyx2html > or > lib/lyx2html > or > lib/lyx2lyx/lyx2html > 4. we need two HTML output formats to distinguich between tex4ht and eLyXer > -> I have implemented this now as "html2"
Essentially what you are proposing is a fork of eLyXer, not an integration. Note that I am happy with it and will try to help as much as possible. But I would like to refactor the code around a bit before it is done, so that code exchange between lyx2html and eLyXer is easiest. (Apart from the license change, that is.) Give me about one week to make the necessary changes. > Concerning the current status of eLyXer, it is much better than tex4ht in > the test I made as it can process nearly every file I have while tex4ht > silently dies with 50% of my documents, especially with the LyX manuals. > eLyXer is of course not yet complete, but that's the same as for tex2lyx. An > integration to LyX assures that everybody can make it better and fix bugs. > And only this way we can assure that it will work correctly with lyx2lyx. We > still have some time until LyX 2.0svn is ready, so I think we should do the > inclusion now. I am hoping that the major selling point of eLyXer is that you have someone willing to make it work on whatever documents you throw at it. It is a one-man show at the moment, but once more people get to know the code there will be more. I am compiling 2.0svn as we speak to try out Pavel's integration. > p.s. Alex, with eLyXer 0.17 I get this error (I just upgraded to Python > 2.6.2): It is better to use the provided integrated version "elyxer", which contains everything packed into a single Python file; and not "src/elyxer.py". Thanks, Alex.
