On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Richard Heck <rgh...@lyx.org> wrote: > On 02/27/2014 03:44 AM, Prannoy Pilligundla wrote: >> >> >> I also had a look at pandoc and tex4ht but as they are converters from >> Latex,i feel we should only consider them as secondary options. > > > I believe pandoc is pretty modular. One would only need to add LyX to the > list of formats that it handles and then, like magic, we could convert the > LyX format to anything else that pandoc handles. It seems to me that this > would be a very good approach. > > The downside to any python-based approach, though, is that the LyX format is > a moving target. The script would need to be updated with every syntax > change. >
An important point when deciding where to convert from (LyX|LateX, and so on) is that there are information that are actually produced by the LaTeX run(s) and are not present in LyX at all. And some of these are pretty important: 1. Cross-references 2. Bibliography 3. Indexes 4. Table of Contents, of Figures, of Tables, etc. I can see recovering (1) and perhaps (4) from LyX, but how are we going to get the properly formatted bibliographical references from the LyX file, when the information about them are not in LyX, but in the bibtex/biblatex style files? And similarly for the indexing. Now, strictly speaking, bibliographic and indexing information are not in the Latex .tex file either. They are in the various auxiliary files produced by the latex runs. So a proper conversion would have to target .tex + .aux + . bcf + idx, etcetera. Unless I am missing something about the way LyX represents information internally, I just don't see how we can get around this problem. Stefano -- __________________________________________________ Stefano Franchi Associate Research Professor Department of Hispanic Studies Ph: +1 (979) 845-2125 Texas A&M University Fax: +1 (979) 845-6421 College Station, Texas, USA stef...@tamu.edu http://stefano.cleinias.org
