Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > "R. Lahaye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | 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.
I'm talking from "saving LyX document to lyx file" point of view. Of course there's lots of stuff beyond LaTeX; the graphics section has "noUnzip", "lyxscale" and "display" etc. which are not (for) LaTeX. However, most of the keywords ARE LaTeX: Boundingbox (= bb), scale (= scale), rotateAngle (= angle), rotateOrigin (= origin) and so forth! This is LaTeX! Then why name it differently. All I'm saying is: if something is LaTeX, then let's use the LaTeX name, instead of hiding it behind another LyX name. Moreover, this is internal data representation, which has nothing to do with the user interface. Whatever you name these things in the GUI, is a matter of GUI design and proper translation between GUI and internal use. What is the status and oppinion on using XML for saving the LyX file? I believe that LyX fileformat is extremely suitable for using XML. I've seen a few discussions on this in the past; where people were quite possitive, but it never came from the ground. > | No, reducing the readability of the lyx file should not be an issue. > | Eventually the lyx file will be saved via a zip filter and is then > | unreadable anyway. > > I am not so sure about that... Who is supposed to read the lyx file format? Users certainly not! The present format, but also XML, saves a lot of diskspace when gzipped. Interesting detail: the xml parser doesn't care whether the file is gzipped or not, it can read it anyway. Regards, Rob.
