Cyrille Artho <c.ar...@aist.go.jp> writes: > Sounds reasonable. I would recommend, though, that no information is > duplicated across files. If LyX is used to edit a "pure tex" document, > then a separate lyx-specific file should keep only additional > information, to avoid duplication of contents. Also, the extra file > would be kept under revision control as well, as there may be multiple > LyX and multiple TeX users working on the same document.
Absolutely - duplication is bad, as it can (will?) lead to problems in the roundtrip: if the info is changed in the tex (or docx) file and not in the lyx-specific file, there will be problems on re-import. Let me re-iterate another point which was made earlier (unfortunately I don't remember the thread): these discussions are effectively independent of the second format in the round-trip: if it is tex, docx, rtf, even txt - the basic discussion is the same. What is different, is a) the set of features which can be maintained in the target format (tex, docx, rtf, txt even, ...) b) the actual creation of the content file (tex, docx, rtf, ...) If this is designed right, I think one get an incredibly powerful framework which can easily be extended to be used for other text formats. Cheers, Rainer > > Rainer M. Krug wrote: >> Cyrille Artho<c.ar...@aist.go.jp> writes: >> >>> Hi Guenter, >>> 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. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Rainer >> >>> >>> Guenter Milde wrote: >>>> On 2013-04-20, Georg Baum wrote: >>>>> Cyrille Artho wrote: >>>> >>>>>> I'm not familiar enough with the capabilities of LaTeX macros to be the >>>>>> final judge on that, but it seems plausible that macros may work better >>>>>> for many features. >>>> >>>>>> However, it is also desirable to keep the LaTeX code simple. For features >>>>>> that are merely related to displaying things (inset open/collapsed, "lyx >>>>>> zoom" factor for images), a comment may indeed be the simplest way. If >>>>>> the >>>>>> comment is garbled or lost, the default (inset open, 100 % zoom) applies. >>>> >>>> Actually, I would not like LyX GUI settings to turn up in the LaTeX file at >>>> all. Non-LyX workers will be offended, others can restore them, and in the >>>> most asked for application of the round-trip feature -- editing in the >>>> Source View -- this is not required as LyX can keep the GUI settings. >>>> >>>> Günter >>>> >> <#secure method=pgpmime mode=sign> >> > -- Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology, UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany) Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology Stellenbosch University South Africa Tel : +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44 Cell: +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98 Fax : +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44 Fax (D): +49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44 email: rai...@krugs.de Skype: RMkrug
pgpyEazd6ZouR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
