On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 10:12:58PM +0200, Georg Baum wrote: > > > Maybe from some standpoint it belongs there. But it is not user-friendly > > to expect the user to tweak layout files, IMHO. > > IMHO if a user can modify his SGML declaration he can as well edit layout > files. The nonexpert user will just use what is there: the standard SGML > declaration and the standard layout file, and they should match. If e.g. > SuSE decide to ship a modified SGML declaration, we can as well expect > that they ship a modified layout file.
That is my point. :-) > > It all boils down to the question: do we do this through a dialog that > will > > manipulate the layout file, or do we expect the user who has such wishes > to > > be knowledgeable enough to know what he is looking for and start > > tweaking the CNAME variable in some obsure file. > > Of course this should be documented. And who said that a graphical editor > for layout files is a bad thing? Believe it or not it is in my plans, using python naturally. ;-) > > I find the first solution (which is what Andreas proposed) better. > > > > Maybe you are right - why should DocBook options belong to LyX dialogs? > > But then, why should LyX mess up with DocBook options through > > its ID mangling? As I see it, it is LyX which is trying to "do the > > Because most users are far less knowleadgable wrt docbook/sgml than you > are. I understand that you want the expert power, but lyx should not only > be friendly to experts, but also to less knowleadgable users. For the same reason that it is not there for latex users, it doesn't belong there. As I said before this is a matter of configuring docbook, not a lyx document. This is not something that you change everyday, neither monthly. Due to its consequences, that you explain very weel in your pages this is something that you never change. That was your point Chris. :-) > Georg -- José Abílio Matos LyX and docbook a perfect match. :-)
