On Fri, May 01, 2009 at 07:19:30PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: >> anyway lets turn this into something more constructive - >> could the people involved write clearly their standpoint now, >> when i guess all the arguments and (possible) plans in the previous thread >> have been given ? >> >> i'm now inclined to the Richard's point of view, that we shouldn't include >> it by default. >> > I vote for full inclusion for three reasons: > 1) the social aspect: Alex looks like a nice and proactive guy. He _is_ > a nice recrue, no doubt about that. We are not being very inviting with > all this fuss about inclusion or not > > 2) the user aspect: it is so much easier for the user and the packager > to not have to install this additional few kilobytes. Come on guys, this > is only a tiny python script! The fact that we include it doesn't mean > that we endorse it as *the* one and only html converter. The user don't > need to know, the two things are separate. > > 3) Alex will get more help with development when it is integrated. > Elyxers really makes no sense without LyX, as simple as that.
I guess I should set up some default reply mode somehow... Anyway, I completely agree. Especially "makes no sense without LyX" means that anything we'd include has a high chance of being The Real Thing, not a fork. Also, there it does not preclude any other options, ranging from using other, external converters to build-in html support. Andre'
