On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 10:27:02AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> | >>>>> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |
> | Lars> Why not switch to an xml like format?
> |
> | Lars> This could also perhaps help the xml-format project a bit.
> |
> | I really do not see what we gain from that, actually...
>
> Primarily the same parser code for all the lyx files, the possibillity
> of haveing a dtd for layout files, language files, bind files,
> keyboard files.
First, I know that I like XML, now LyX even outputs an XML version of
docbook. :-)
We talked before about changing the layout files to script files using
python/perl/scheme/javascript or whatever language we choose to access the
lyx kernel.
Does this means that we are postponing this decision?
One option that is simultaneously XML and a script language is xls, but
that is to take with lots of salt, with the size of an ocean. :-)
What I am raising is this, do we want the layout files to be scripts or
data declarations (as the XML solution implies)?
> | Whereas the
> | gain is clear for the .lyx format which requires some structure, the
> | layout format is fine as it is. Since layouts are edited by hand, I
> | really feel the current format is much more intelligible.
>
> imho hte layout files are close to xml already, just bissing some <>
> and change the name of some endtags.
I totally agree.
> Lgb
--
José
