On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 11:01:44AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > But, just to make my position clear: I am very happy that you are > doing this, it is certainly a part in LyX that needs work. However I > am afraid that this work, instead of unifying LaTeX and XML support, > just shifts the support. My aim is to have .lyx files that work > equally well with latex or xml, and that the two formats (or more) are > equally well supported by the .lyx format _with the same mechanisms_. > I do not want part of the .lyx format to be tuned specifically for xml > and the same goes for latex. It might be that to be a universal format > the .lyx format needs to be very xml/sgml like, that is ok. Anyway, > that is my take on this. .lyx changes and .layout changes should, as > far as it is possible, be usable by all output formats.
That's completely reasonable. But as we haven't had philosophical arguments for a while I'd like to add: In natural sciences it is not unheard of to have two competing theories for a while as it takes that while to figure out what a common theory would look like. Moreover, there are even places where using a simpler, but "wrong" theory is just good enough. To handle car crashes one usually does not have to use Lorentz tranformation. "Common sense" Gallilei is good enough... Andre'
