On 02/25/2014 12:13 PM, Rainer M Krug wrote:
stefano franchi <stefano.fran...@gmail.com> writes:
I am preparing a LyX document with all the features listed in our GSOC
2014 page. I will transfer it to ODF with tex4ht, possibly fix it
manually, and then will circulate it on list for ODF/Docx tests.
I think this is a brilliant idea - ths could then become the benchmark
for the complete round-trip.
Here is what I am including:
sections, headers, ...
lists
emphasis, bold, ...
comments
track changes
tables and figures
footnotes
bibliographic references
math
cross-references
tracked changes
It will have one section per item, do we can focus the tests on one
feature at a time, and perhaps split the document in mini-docs an have
a series of unit tests of sorts.
Question:
1. Is the list comprehensive enough? Too comprehensive?
We should possibly prioritize some aspects which are more essential then
others. There will very likely be some different views on e.g. math and
footnotes, but I assume that there are some we can agree on. My list
would be, in descending order of importance:
1) sections, headers, ...
2) lists
3) emphasis, bold, ...
4) comments
5) track changes
6) tables and figures
7) bibliographic references
8) tables
9) figures
10) math, footnotes & cross-references
Tables and figures, and tables, and figures? ;-)
I guess I'd count "math" as not one thing. Dealing with the simple
constructs is essential, and perhaps more complex constructs are less
so. But it would at least be worth having, as part of the test suite,
the full panoply of arrays and equation types.
Is it even possible to handle math macros in DOCX? I'd include them,
because we'll have to do something with them, if only put them in
comments so they can be recovered on re-import.
It's perhaps worth noting, somewhere, that we already know how to export
MathML, though that may need tweaking for this purpose, and there are,
of course, bugs in the current code.
Richard
