Rainer M Krug wrote: > The idea would be that a round-trip framework is envisaged, which > provides the facilities to easily expand it from one export backend > (docx) to another (possibly odt? markdown?). > > IMPORTANT: this would NOT change ANYTHING in the existing export / > import features, as these are geared to export / import the documents as > good as possible, with maintaining as many features as possible in the > document. > > The round-trip would guarantee that: > > A document authored in LyX would result in a e.g. docx with a LIMITED > set of features, but that a re-import would result in the SAME .lyx > file. features and formats not supported by the backend should be stored > in a metadata file. > > The important point here is *limited set of features*! > > In addition, the framework should be easily, possibly only by using > config files, able to be extended to other formats.
I don't understand the difference between round trip and the existing export/import here. Why is it important? If the additional metadata is stored in a different file, it could simply be generated for the standard export, and be used by the standard import (if it exists). The goal of the export/import is to support as many features as possible. This is needed for round trip as well. The only difference I see is the additional metadata file, so the roundtrip framework vs. export/import difference reduces to a switch whether the metadata file should be generated (for export) or used (for import). Or did I understand anything wrong? > Yes - although I see one problem which I could not find in any of the > .lyx <-> .docx : comments and track changes. These *have to be handled*. > I somehow have the feeling, that an inclusion of comments and track > changes into pandoc would be the best way forward... I agree. Unfortunately pandoc is written in Haskell which reduces the number of possible contributors significantly (which does not mean that Haskell is a bad language, but that it is much less known than e.g. C++ or python). Georg
