Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 07:39:10PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote:
| > That would be the easiest exercise:
| >
| > \begin{figure}
| > %LyX: collapse figure
| > [...]
| >
| > Just define a nice syntax for LyX metacomments.
|
| Hm... why not. This is something Scientific Workplace does, too.
And we have had a _lot_ of disussions on this one...
We ended up deciding against it...
One of the main reasons (for me) is: what might happen when the user
edit the latex file manually... what about the metacomments now? Are
they still correct? or do we need special parsing and logic to find
out if we should delete the metacomment?
----
I am aware that LyX development has turned a great deal towards
(La)TeX lately, and I am beginning to think that the attitude now is a
bit to latex specific.
We _really_ want to support other typesetting systems as well, perhaps
even for previews (not inline preview). (xml, lout and others.)
My take on this is that LyX is an Document Processor that works on
.lyx files. We provide export and import from tex as a favor to the
user, and we should really add some more convenicene imports (we
already have most of the exports), f.ex. formatted plain text, html,
lout, troff.
Also, we should see if there are way so that we could remove the latex
centric (or one format only) layout files that we have now, so that
the same layout files could support different export formats.
(perhaps by having latex.def, xml,def, lout.def, troff.def kind of
files)
Of course we model a lot of code in LyX on latex, but that is because
we think latex is one of the absolutely best typesetting systems.
But there/this is no reason to make LyX any more LaTeX specific than it
already is.
--
Lgb
