On 2009-10-22, rgheck wrote: > On 10/22/2009 05:53 PM, Alex Fernandez wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:25 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes >> <lasgout...@lyx.org> wrote: >>> Le 22/10/2009 09:29, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit :
>>>> Right, it is different here as eLyXer cannot rely on LyX to do the >>>> conversion. But it should be pretty easy to add a call to lyx2lyx before >>>> conversion. ... >> ... it would be trivial to make the converter line work: >> lyx2lyx -V 277 -$$i | elyxer> $$o >> I don't know if that line would work in Windows, but I guess eLyXer >> might accept another option --lyx2lyx, or something. If used as exporter from LyX, it is easily to configure the converter settings to use lyx2lyx as "pre-processor". (This is why I asked for a diagnostic setting to get the highest supported LyX format -- which is implemented now.) > JMarc, let me just remind you that this sort of maneouver has its > limits: New features will evaporate in a whirlwind of ERT, as will any > changes to semantics. Obviously, elyxer will still work with many files, > and will probably work OK with yet more files. But we do not accept this > kind of limitation where LyX itself is concerned, i.e., we demand that > 1.7 files exported to 1.6 still work as expected, even if the document > is then awash in ERT. Yes, this was the end of the last discussion round: it is better to leave LyX and elyxer as separate but co-operating units. Note, that this round of discussion was not started by Alex but by a request from Uwe, though. > The best solution, it seems to me, would be for elyxer to read the > format line and, if it is not to its liking, then it can call lyx2lyx > itself. But I'd guess this would be difficult to implement, since > finding lyx2lyx might not be so easy. The, it should be LyX's task to install lyx2lyx in a standard place (on the PATH alongside tex2lyx, say). Günter
