Andreas Vox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>
>> José AbÃlio Oliveira Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> | On Thu, Oct 14, 2004 at 10:11:02PM +0000, Andreas Vox wrote:
>> >> José AbÃlio Oliveira Matos <jamatos <at> ...> writes:
>> >>
>> >> Well, your plan would have been perfect a view weeks ago,
>> >> but now that we have a XML-based LyX fileformat I think
>> >> we should do it with XSLT.
>> >
>> | Me too but not for 1.4.0, unless the xml file format goes in before. We
>> | are delayed for more than a year in releasing 1.4.
>> >
>> >> We would just have to convince the others to implement
>> >> the XML-write as a SAX source
>> >
>> | I think that others don't need to be convinced.
>>
>> Use SAX to write the xml? why O' why?
>>
>
| It's not that I prefer writing the LyX XML that way but it would
| be ideal to feed it into an XSLT processor.
| SAX is an advantage if you have a xslt processor which can
| read this SAX source. This avoids an intermediate file and the
| need to parse the LyX XML.
>
| And once you have a SAX source, it's simple to provide an
| identitiy transform to write LyX XML :-)
| Replace lyx2lyx by XSLT-stylesheets ...
| Replace most export converters by stylesheets ...
>
| If LyX includes a full XML/SAX library some time, this would
| make most sense.
>
| If not, a straightforward LyX XML write and an external XSLT
| processor could also provide the same functionality.
| In fact I'm not even sure if it would be the better alternative
| ( -1 for aesthetics, +1 for speed of development, +1 for avoiding
| a dependence on a XSLT library, +/- ? for robustness)
To me it makes no sense to generate SAX inside lyx. LyX does not need
it. Only exports to other formats need it, and that should IMHO be an
external process.
OTOH... generating a xml file top-down wth a SAX/DOM structure
(whatever) bit be nicer than generating the file manually as I do now.
But even with that I would not be happy about pushing the SAX
structure anywhere.
| Will the XML format go into 1.4.0 ? Maybe as an option?
Hard to get at compile time options is not unlikely.
--
Lgb
