rgheck schrieb:
The fact is that we currently don't have a feature that generates
HTML. Our native HTML export is, strictly spoken, currently vapor
ware. We currently don't have something better than eLyXer so why are
you opposed to it?
First of all, I am sick and effing tired of these sorts of remarks about
native HTML output. I expect it from Alex, but not from you. I did a
good bit of work on that, then had to stop due to severe back problems
and serious personal loss, not to mention teaching, advising, and
research, just like a lot of other people around here, not to mention
doing my best to fix 1.6 bugs.
You misunderstood me. I never said that native HTML export is not a very useful feature and also
never doubt your knowledge about coding. You did a lot for LyX and I hope you will also do in the
future.
Please calm down. The fact is that we don't have currently something better to generate HTML output
so why not having a few files more in our SVN tree? Native HTML is work in progress but is just not
yet ready.
I leave the discussions about programming and (X)HTML internals to you both. I only want to have it
in our SVN to give it a chance and to later merge the advantages of both approaches to our native
support.
As for why I and many others are opposed to adding elyxer to svn, we are
opposed to adding something to LyX svn that we will then have to
maintain and that no-one in the current development team wants to
maintain. (I for one do not want anything to do with that code.)
Well the idea was to give Alex SVN permissions to maintain it in SVN.
We
think adding HTML export is worthwhile, even though very few of us have
any use for it---I actually have no use for it---but we are certain that
the approach taken by elyxer is wrong, as we have tried time and again
to explain.
I fully understand you here but don't understand why this is a reason for not allowing Alex to do
his work in our SVN. Alex and you have different opinions about the HTML handling, so why not giving
everybody the right to develop his idea? In the end the user will decide what suits him more. When
finally you solution has shown its strength and is more stable than eLyXer, people will use your
solution.
Moreover, since LyX will have HTML output at some point soon, we do not
see the point of adding elyxer to svn only then to remove it as
redundant or unmaintained.
But why not. That doesn't harm and is all I proposed, nothing more.
But the most obvious question is this one: What precisely is the point
of adding elyxer to the svn tree? There is no interaction between it and
any of the LyX code except configure.py and one of the scripts, i.e., no
more interaction than any other converter. It was once suggested that
maybe it would encourage Alex to get involved, but he has repeatedly
made clear that he has no interest in doing anything else with LyX,
since he has (inter alia) no interest in learning C++. None of us have
any interest in touching his code, either. So why one tree?
OK, I started as user without any programming knowledge. I loved LyX but was frustrated about
installing it and therefore wrote the Windows installer assisted by Angus Leeming. Over the time
Angus pushed me to become a developer and I started with small bug fixes and this way learned a bit
C++ and Qt. So once you work with a program you will start fixing bugs, at least to get your scripts
running - you often have no other choice.
I'm happy that my installer is in SVN although there is another approach: Joost's installer. The
users can decide what to they ant to use and that is my idea for the HTML output.
regards Uwe
