On 10/8/20 13:51, Kornel Benko wrote:
Am Mon, 10 Aug 2020 13:21:56 +0200
schrieb Daniel <xraco...@gmx.de>:
On 2020-08-10 12:59, Daniel wrote:
On 2020-08-10 12:42, Daniel wrote:
On 2020-08-10 12:08, Kornel Benko wrote:
Am Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:32:35 +0200
schrieb Daniel <xraco...@gmx.de>:
On 2020-08-10 09:15, Kornel Benko wrote:
Am Mon, 10 Aug 2020 08:24:56 +0200
schrieb Daniel <xraco...@gmx.de>:
Attached is a chart of LyX font sizes. Does anyone else find it
slightly
confusing that LyX uses two different naming schemes (in addition to
LaTeX)? Maybe some historic reason? If possible, I suggest to go for
only one naming scheme.
I guess the LaTeX naming scheme for large font sizes is a bit
non-descriptive (using capitals to indicate
comparatives/superlatives).
So, I guess that is why there is a deviation from LaTeX. I am
still not
fully sure that it is a good idea to use different names because
people
will have to remember two different schemes instead of one.
LyX is _not_ latex. It describes the font sizes for a variety of
output
formats. Besides, the GUI is translatable. Only the English version
would
suit your needs.
We do not expect our users are latex experts.
But insofar as the more descriptive names should stay, I suggest to
match Gui and LyX names in the following way (which actually helps to
create less of a rift between LaTeX and LyX):
- "Huger" (Gui name) instead of "Giant" (LyX name) because it matches
better the LaTeX naming (\Huge).
- Gui/LaTeX names for smaller font sizes because they are more
descriptive, i.e. "Footnotesize" and "Scriptsize" (LyX name)
instead of
"Smaller" and "Smallest" (Gui name).
I guess the latter needs some argument: while there is no match of
sectioning sizes to large sizes because they depend on the class,
"footnotesize" and "scriptsize" match the respective sizes in classes
(as far as I know). So, it's helpful to know that if one wants to
match
other elements in the text.
While LyX _is_ not LaTeX, but isn't it _based on_ LaTeX (ideas).[1] And
I guess it's the most widely used output format. Also, that LyX is does
not explain why Gui and LyX names differ.
Reading Intro.lyx, there is nowhere mentioned latex.
The first line
LyX is a document preparation system.
describes almost precisely as to what lyx is aimed to.
Yes, lyx is created also with latex in mind. But since we support
other formats too,
I don't see why we should be more latex centric.
You are right, I forgot about the language translation issues. However,
I don't see why, at least in English the Gui and LyX names shouldn't
match. And then be translated from there. Here is a translation
friendly
version of my other suggestions with German examples:
Why doesn't the GUI use the translated version of the LyX name?
What do you mean (I don't understand the term 'LyX name')?
"LyXname" is the name used in LyX's code for size names used in the
layout files. These differ from those used in the GUI, see my
attachment in the first message of the current threat.
- "Riesiger" instead of "Gigantisch" (Gui and LyX name) because it
matches better the translated LaTeX naming (\Huge). (Here the German
version actually differs from the English version in that both Gui and
LyX names are the same. Good! But "Riesiger" would be a slightly better
as a translation of LaTeX's Huge, I think.)
As said, we are not latex.
Here is a slightly more elaborate argument:
"Riesiger" instead of "Gigantisch" (Gui and LyX name) because it
matches better the translated LaTeX naming (\Huge) *and why not match
it if we already use comparatives such as "larger" anyway*.
- Translated LyX/LaTeX names (Previously, I mistakenly wrote "Gui name"
instead of "LyX name") for smaller font sizes because they are more
descriptive, i.e. "Fußnotengröße" and "Skriptgröße" (translated
LyX/LaTeX name) instead of "Kleiner" and "Sehr klein" (Gui name).
More descriptive yes, but the GUI is for a normal user better
understandable IMHO.
Yes, in one way, the GUI is better understandable for a complete
typesetting notice. For example, this person might not know what
"script" means. However, in the font size chooser the sizes are
already ordered, so it might be no problem to deduce this. And
everyone not knowing the LyX internal translation, including the
notice and LaTeX expert, will be lost if they try to match the font
size of a footnote (or script).
The argument I gave seems to apply independent of translation, I think.
However, if using "footnotesize" and "scriptsize" turn out to be too
problematic because it does not make sense for some output formats,
then
I suggest to use the English Gui names as LyX names.
In summary, I still don't understand why
1. LyX names are not _closer_ to LaTeX names,
2. English Gui and LyX names differ.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LyX (Though there seem to be some
mistakes on the page. It claims that the Table Editor and Math Editor
are WYSIWYG. I guess they are WYSIWYM, strictly speaking.--
ps. Attached is my suggestion. The upshot would be that people familiar
with LaTeX would basically have to remember only naming scheme and some
names are more descriptive.
Here are the alternatives as I see it:
- Let the LyX names match more the LaTeX names, i.e. "Giant" becomes
"Huger".
- Let the LyX names match the Gui names (but different from the LaTeX
names).
+1 from me.
So you are suggesting to do both of those changes, right?
I think that at least there is no reason for having *three* different
schemes.
+1.
I am still inclined that one rather than two size schemes is even better
and I like the extra information given by "footnotesize" and
"scriptsize". But I must confess that I am only using LyX with LaTeX and
don't have a good feel for LyX being used in other ways.
--
Daniel
--
lyx-devel mailing list
lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org
http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel
