Charles de Miramon wrote: > I'm not a developper but I'm wondering if you are not underestimating the > complexity of going Unicode.
I don't think so. > Changing the internal format to Unicode is > maybe not that hard but having a fully Unicode editor is *very* complex. And the latter is not the goal as far as I understand it, at least not for the first step. > It took 3 years to another Norwegian Lars from Trolltech to code Scribe > and I doubt that Pango the Gtk counterpart has took less time. If you > leave European languages, you are going in a sea of misery. Think > languages with ligatures like Arabic where if you select part of a word > you must change the shape of the letter in your clipboard and that is just > the beginning. Leave the Middle East to Asia and the complexity is > multiplied. Who says that we want to support all these languages? The problem currently is that we are converting from and to several encodings, and this is a real mess and not working in many cases (look up bugzilla for "encoding" and "utf"). It would already be a big help if only these conversions were not necessary anymore, without any support for new languages. > Before going Unicode it would be an interesting experiment to see if it is > not possible to wrap the Lyx editor around Scribe and/or Pango. I guess that doing so would almost be a complete rewrite, but if youn want to try, why not. > Why also an XML format is so important for LyX ? XML is slow to parse and > hungry in memory. KOffice (using the OpenOffice XML file) is wery bad with > big files. Is XML really adapted for wordprocessing ? What is really > problematic with the actual format ? XML has nothing to do with unicode. Georg
