On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 09:54:37AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > 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?
In the current cse of \lyxlock, this \lyxlock is just a hint to the frontend that the given inset starts in a locked state. No real harm is done if something goes wrong. > ---- > > 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. I think that the impression is at least partially wrong. My work towards inset unification creates rather uniform inset which are nice for XML as well. The fact that I use .tex for "communication" has more practical reasons (like in "we currently have a .tex but no XML parser" and "I understand parts of .tex, but not really XML") but I'd think this is rather superficial and when the infrastructure is ok, changing "frontends" is trivial. > We _really_ want to support other typesetting systems as well, perhaps > even for previews (not inline preview). (xml, lout and others.) Indeed. And I do not see us deviate from that path. > My take on this is that LyX is an Document Processor that works on > .lyx files. Which should move to some proper XML format rather than using the current bastard of XML in some places, TeX in math etc... > 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. I have no problems with that, either. > 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. I see no such tendency. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
