>> Guenter Milde wrote:
On 2013-04-22, Rainer M. Krug wrote:
> Cyrille Artho <c.ar...@aist.go.jp> writes:
>> I would assume that only a LaTeX source file is kept, no other files.
>> With a strategy of having multiple files, there are other issues. I
>> would prefer having one file for everything, but I am interested to
>> hear arguments for the other case; maybe I can be convinced that
>> multiple files (LaTeX + LyX-specific features) are better :-)
> There is one strong argument for having multiple files: One can send a
> "clean" tex (or docx as suggested in another thread) to the co-authors
> and keep the additional files (in an archive probably?) local. They can
> not be corrupted, lost or deleted as it would be relatively easy if
> these would be part in one tex file. Additionally, as a tex document
> does usually consist anyway of multiple files (the .tex file, often .bib
> files and images, ...) I don't think it is a big problem to have one
> more.
This sounds resonable. Alternatively, the lyx file could be kept and merged
with the edited latex file on re-import.
There are two main usages for improved LyX-LaTeX-LyX roundtrip:
a) editing a document in LaTeX form after export with later re-import:
- cooperation with authors preferring hand-edited LaTeX over LyX
- easier edit of features that are hard/inefficient to do in the GUI
- automated tasks easier to program for LaTeX format than LyX (or use of
existing scripts).
b) editing the "LaTeX source" of a document inside LyX
(I remember many requests for an "editable source view" on lyx-users.)
In case a), improved round-tripping is a bonus even without storage of GUI
settings.
In case b), there is no need for files and LyX can keep GUI settings (except
the ones obsoleted by deletions).
This is why I propose to concentrate on the preservation of content first.
Günter
