On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 05:57:16PM -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 12:00:14PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > > Andrew Parsloe wrote: > > > > > I notice (in 2.2 beta2 on windows7) on typing LyX, TeX, LaTeX, LaTeX2e, > > > that these strings are *not* converted to the logos. Nor does saving, > > > closing and reopening the document convert them to the logos, nor do > > > they display as logos in the pdf. > > > > > > However, if I export to 2.1 format and then reload that document in 2.2 > > > beta2, they *are* converted to the logos. > > > > > > Something has been overlooked here. > > > > Unfortunately this has not been overlooked, but a correct implementation of > > the 2.2->2.1 conversion in lyx2lyx would be very hard to achieve. Our > > policy > > for lyx2lyx is that all forward conversions have to work in all cases, but > > backward conversions are only guaranteed to produce a valid file format, > > they may change the document output. We try to implement the backward > > conversions correctly if possible, but in this case it is really difficult: > > Thanks for the explanation (which I forgot is also in the > Development.lyx guide). > > What do you think about producing a warning from lyx2lyx when we know > that there is a high chance that the 2.1.x document will not be > equivalent and explaining why? > > I'm more interested in this concept more generally than in this > particular case. For example, the Development.lyx guide says basically: > > 1. Ideally we would produce equivalent documents. > 2. If not (1) then we must produce valid .lyx files. > > What about the following? > > 1. Ideally we would produce equivalent documents. > 2. If not (1) then produce a valid .lyx files and produce a warning. > 3. If a warning would complicate things too much, then the only > requirement is to produce valid .lyx files. > > Scott
I'm still curious someone has thoughts on the above idea. The main question I have is do we usually know when we are not producing equivalent documents (and thus it is easy to issue a warning)? I assumed so but I don't have experience with this. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
