Uwe Stöhr wrote: > >> 4. we need two HTML output formats to distinguich between tex4ht and > eLyXer > >> -> I have implemented this now as "html2" > > > > this was already done with my previous code and the ui was not poluted > > by html2 entry when somebody didn't have elyxer installed. > > No it was not. What you did was detecting eLyXer but this is not necessary > when it is integrated.
which we haven't agreed upon >The detection even not worked (at least on Windows) > because you have to search for elyxer.py not an executable. this we can fix (worked here without problems). it seems however that the fix should be done in elyxer package. looks strange we should use elyxer.py when the package distributes elyxer binary (Alex?). >You also haven't introduced the html2 format, not having set a converter. yes i introduced both new format and converter. read carefully the code you reverted. it was set if and only if elyxer executable was found. this didn't happen on win platform, so you haven't seen this format and converter. >So why do you revert my change? I hate Ping Pong. so we have two haters today :) but please note that you started it by reverting my code without a single question. it drives me crazy to spent hours by discussing this issue on list and then get it reverted without any fuss. > >> Even if eLyXer (lyx2html) might not be ready for LyX 2.0 we can disable > it > >> by commenting out 2 lines in configure.py. > > > > i dont understand why you dont discuss such things in thread in which it > > belongs to. > > The other thread became a discussion about the completeness of eLyXer while > this is not important for its inclusion and in the other thread Abdel, > JMarc, Jürgen and others already agreed to an inclusion. could you show me those messages pretty please? except Abdel i don't remember any other clear statement about proper inclusion now. JMarc wanted to have lyx2lyx integration, Juergen also wanted the integration with eg lyx2lyx, but havent said anything about the inclusion into our sources. so where you get this idea? in the begining i thought myself we can do it, but started to change my mind after Richard's argumentation, which brought the whole thread into the new light - it may even happen that we will have completely different html output strategy. moreover Richard and later even me checked the output on yet untested documents and brought the questions mainly about math support, which was insufficient. i can't accept the claim that elyxer is in a better state than the other converters (yet). > //friday begins... > > > for the administrative part, you are again committing without a single > question > > code (which needs the discussion). > > Hmm, there was a discussion with the result that we should include it. When > I came home I found your change to configure.py, that was not discussed > btw.. your lying turns me into red. i proposed to have only the detection part also proposed patch and asked about opinions. immediately got ack from Richard and have waited till night whether somebody raises something againt which didn't happen. >There you introduced a bug so I at least fixed this. no, you simple implemented your own solution and completely reverted the old one. i dont say it must be coded that way, but lets discuss it before when more opinions exist. >What's the > problem? You now reverted my change leading to the same problem as before > which is no step forward. > > > i have asked you numerous times whether you can settle on the simple > policy for > > asking before committing, but when you ignore it and request for > reverting > > leads usually to the void, i will revert it myself. > > Then please also do this yes i did it http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg150521.html >and don't introduce code that doesn't do what it should. nonsense. i checked it works here, asked for review and its quite normal that we have to tweak things on other archs, when it doesn't work. pavel
