Hello, Lars Gullik Bjonnes wrote: > | I'm very much tempted to simplify the graphics inset format even > | more. Why do > | we use new LyX keywords that have a one-to-one overlap with the > | corresponding > | LaTeX keywords? Why not staying as close to LaTeX as possible? > > LyX is not LaTeX and we should not bind ourselves to close to latex in > _any_ way.
This does not answer the question. I'm just a humble Lyx user, but I think that as long Lyx uses Latex for typesetting, Lyx is effectively Latex _or_ Lyx can only produce an approximate document regarding its promises to the user. I like Lyx because I need to write Latex, not postscript. That is to say, I work in an university and want to produce text that will be universaly understood by journals and colaborators. I know Latex enough for not needing Lyx, but I like Lyx because with it I can produce Latex 10 times faster, and with better quality. Now, if Lyx aims to be a general word processor using Latex just because it is good and ready, then it will have to compete with openoffice, kword, abiword, wordperfect, MS office, framemaker, etc, and will eventually loose. The only users that will remain faithful to lyx will be those like me. So if Lyx developers care about users, it would have to stay as close to Latex as possible, not ashamed to be a Latex frontend. I would love to see lyxformat as a latex subset, possibly using the metacommand '%LyX' for non typesetting data. I would love to see reLyx much reduced thus more reliable, and not increasing and increasing to accomplish new lyxformat versions, until finally abandoned because Lyx is not Latex. All this of course IMHO. João Luis.
