On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:52:50AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > Why change the LyX native language? It's incredibly readable and > parsable the way it is.
It is neither. It is "sort of" readable and parsable at most. And it hampers progress in a few areas. The last step of math and non-math inset unification for instance. > I'd need to rewrite my otl2lyx utility, and probably 5 or 10 other > program's I've written to process LyX native files. lyx2lyx might help. > Wouldn't the incorporation of the Xerces parser bloat up LyX? If you use DOM > to handle the XML in memory, it limits filesize. If you use SAX, well, it's > kinda nasty IMHO, and might require multiple runs through the file for many > functionalities. We need at most a 'cheap' parser that's able to read in some XML-ish syntax. There's certainly no need for XML libraries on the output side. > If it were me prioritizing new features to LyX, I'd put in character styles > and a facility to make environment creation and modification much easier. XML allows proper nesting all over the place and therefore lowers the current barrier for character styles. Andre'
