Etienne lepercq wrote:



        I _really_ think this is a must have: I know someone else that
        is willing to work with LyX and propose it to her teacher, but
        having to tar/untar ... will make it _very_ difficult to accept.
        Of course, you are right about the problem of where to untar
        temporary files (as with this approach, I think un-tared files
        should be considered as temporary files from the user's point
        of view) but currently LyX _does_ use temporary files when
        working with an unsaved document !

    That's precisely what my old implementation did: untar to the
    temporary directory.

        I think that preserving the same temporary path is not
        decreasing the quality of LyX, and adds a good feature (for
        some people, a must have, when compared to the workflow some
        have when working with WYSIWYG applications like OOo or MS-Word).

    Yes, this model is similar to OOo, etc. Images and the like get
    "embedded" within the document and lose touch with where they came
    from. But it's a familiar model.


Yes, that's a major drawback ! But the .zlyx could be used as an "export" file format to share with others, then one could just merge back the .lyx embedded into the .zlyx : I see this as a way one can use this feature, but some may want to use it otherwise (as everyone does when using OOo for example, reinsert the figure)

This is where things get messy. If you just want an export format, then that actually exists already, kind of. There's a script, lyxpak.py, in the development tree that will "pack" a LyX file and all its dependencies, wherever they may be, into a tar, I think. Then it can be shipped off, unpacked, etc. The difficulty is then in "updating". Obviously, you can unpack the tar yourself and do with it as you will. But, for security reasons, you do not really want LyX to be able automatically to unpack and write to arbitrary locations in your filesystem.

Richard

Reply via email to