On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 12:59:26PM -0400, Kuba Ober wrote:
> Alas, we don't need (and shouldn't!) use TeX keywords. I'm all for using
> LyX-specific keywords. We can just use TeX-like syntax instead of XML-like
> syntax, especially that one can do conversion both ways, say like this
> <tag val1="abc">something blah</tag> <--> \tag[val1="abc"]{something blah}
The problem is you'd probabaly won't reach consensus on that. [I somewhat
lean to the TeX side in this discussion, but XML's verbosity seems to be
some more widely accepted "standard"]
As you mentioned that this "simplified TeX" can be transformed into XML
easily, why don't you write converter scripts lyx2footex and footex2lyx
which do that conversion and whenever you want to operate on the raw .lyx
file you can do that translation, operate on the .footex file and translate
it back?
The problem with file formats is that there are too many of them already so
creating a new one is not really helpful, especially if you have to invest
a lot of time in solving problems that have been solved for other formats
already [escaping of { and \ comes into mind].
Andre'
--
Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
