On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 08:39:14AM +, Guenter Milde wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
> On 2016-04-01, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>
> > Günter has proposed layout patches to respond to changes in updated
> > LaTeX class files at the following two threads:
> > (acmsiggraph)
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/
Dear all,
On 2016-04-01, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> Günter has proposed layout patches to respond to changes in updated
> LaTeX class files at the following two threads:
> (acmsiggraph)
> https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid&q=ndgr7a%24kuf%241%40ger.gmane.org
> (aastex6)
> https://www.mail-ar
Can I suggest that when people make these sorts of changes:
LyX.Py
- ("1_6", range(277,288), minor_versions("1.6" , 0))]
+ ("1_6", range(277,289), minor_versions("1.6" , 0))] #RGH,
command insets
Buffer.cpp
-int const LYX_FORMAT = 287;
+int const LYX_FO
local/lyx/cvsroot/lyx-devel/development/FORMAT,v
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -p -r1.13 FORMAT
--- FORMAT 21 Aug 2003 12:15:28 - 1.13
+++ FORMAT 7 Oct 2003 09:01:54 -
@@ -1,5 +1,38 @@
LyX file-format changes
---
+2003-10-07 Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL P
Hi Martin,
please document the changes to the file format that you introduced with box
in development/FORMAT.
After that I will do the convertion and retroversion for lyx2lyx.
--
José Abílio
LyX file format cop.
Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 10:26:59AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
> wrote:
>> > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> Andre> Hm... now I have to use ./configure --with-included-string
>> Andre> --without-debug --with-version-suffix=1.4.0cvs
>> Andre> -
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 10:26:59AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Andre> Hm... now I have to use ./configure --with-included-string
> Andre> --without-debug --with-version-suffix=1.4.0cvs
> Andre> --enable-maintainer-mode instead
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> Hm... now I have to use ./configure --with-included-string
Andre> --without-debug --with-version-suffix=1.4.0cvs
Andre> --enable-maintainer-mode instead of a simple ./configure.
But you just have to do it once, remember...
JMarc
On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 10:06:58AM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Andre> The new(?) fourth item in textclass.lst leads to
> Andre> incomaptibility between 1.3 and 1.4 both ways, i.e. one always
> Andre> has to run Reconfigure when switching version which is
> Andre> especially annoying as LyX
> "Andre" == Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Andre> The new(?) fourth item in textclass.lst leads to
Andre> incomaptibility between 1.3 and 1.4 both ways, i.e. one always
Andre> has to run Reconfigure when switching version which is
Andre> especially annoying as LyX 'needs to be rest
The new(?) fourth item in textclass.lst leads to incomaptibility between
1.3 and 1.4 both ways, i.e. one always has to run Reconfigure when
switching version which is especially annoying as LyX 'needs to be
restarted' afterwards.
This should be fixed at least for the upgrade 1.3 -> 1.4.
[Who inv
Amir Karger wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 08:29:07AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >
> > > - LaTeX things LyX can't do: my favorite example is \section[foo]{bar},
> > > which is supposedly going to be supported someday.
> >
> > Even the old mathed read \sqrt[3]{x} so I guess it is possible
On Thu, 9 Aug 2001, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > - If done properly, a C++ LaTeX parser would be a nice contribution to
>
>
> That's the scary part of the implementation... I had a look at the TeXBook
> and I still don't really know how it should work...
In as far as reLyX is a
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 11:34:44AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
[snip!]
>
> and follow an implicit DTD.
That was my point. Any text-based file format follows an implicit DTD.
> John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | We can do both design and DTD simultaneously. When we need a ne
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 08:19:56AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > >The conversion is important. Perhaps the problem is that there aren't
> > >many developers which know perl well.
> >
> > Um, I do. I program perl & python for a living. Is there a bug /
> > feature request for reLyx anywhere?
> - If done properly, a C++ LaTeX parser would be a nice contribution to
That's the scary part of the implementation... I had a look at the TeXBook
and I still don't really know how it should work...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMA
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> I wonder whether the situation would improve once we had (a) a decent
> document structure and (b) the reLyX code in C++.
>
> I think there are not many things in reLyX that cant' be done in C++ and
> - that's the point - there are more developers that
Herbert Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> why should I do a lyx->latex->lyx cycle?
>>
>> You need it if you work on a document with a coauthor which doesn't have LyX.
>
> this is the only reason??
It is the only reason for doing the cycle I can see. Having said that,
interoperability in gen
> be able to get rid of the reLyXmt{} in syntax.defaults. (Actually, you
> shouldn't get rid of it, since people might want to put their own personal
> commands in there that aren't supported by Mathed.
If people wants support for something that is not yet in mathed they should
tell me (in simple
> >The conversion is important. Perhaps the problem is that there aren't
> >many developers which know perl well.
>
> Um, I do. I program perl & python for a living. Is there a bug /
> feature request for reLyx anywhere? I could have a poke around and see
> what I can do.
You could try to fi
> What do you mean with semantical markup? Is it about the MathML content
> tags?
Yes.
> If so I agree that presentational markups are maybe enough.
Depends on intended usage...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 12:22:21AM +0200, ben wrote:
> John Weiss a écrit :
>
> > Once we do design an XML-based LyX format, I suggest we document the
> > format using XSL. There's no magic around XSL: it's just an XML
> > document that uses a format designed for defining other XML formats.
> >
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 10:17:58AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Having recently done an XML seminar at work, I can offer the following
> | to the discussion:
[snip!]
> |
> | For "well-formed", think "lex". For "valid", think "yacc".
>
> A
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 03:25:04PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 12:27:36PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> >
> > I'd really like to see an XML format for 1.3 ... as it would make
> > things much easier to convert in the future ...
>
> Personally, I think it best to have lyx store
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 09:21:51AM +1200, Michael Koziarski wrote:
>
> >The conversion is important.
> >Perhaps the problem is that there aren't many developers which know perl well.
>
> Um, I do. I program perl & python for a living. Is there a bug / feature
> request for reLyx anywhere? I
>The conversion is important.
>Perhaps the problem is that there aren't many developers which know perl well.
Um, I do. I program perl & python for a living. Is there a bug / feature
request for reLyx anywhere? I could have a poke around and see what I can
do.
Cheers
Koz
Andre Poenitz a écrit :
> > > - formula were not XML-ised at all (It looked a bit harder and
> > > somebody was reorganizing the code : is it over ?)
> >
> > About this, I know that Jose is in vacations, but does someone know if it is
> > planned to have math formulas translated to MathML when
Eran Tromer wrote:
>
> Herbert Voss wrote:
> >
> > Dekel Tsur wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:46:07PM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
> > > > > | > | Since we are continuously adding new features to LyX, reLyX stays
>behind,
> > > > > | > | so a lyx->latex->lyx cycle can loose informati
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 06:17:00PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | The article.layout etc. files are for the environments/commands defined by the
> | standard .cls files, and they should not be changed by the user.
>
> But I want my own defined floats while still using the article.layout.
>
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 05:23:31PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > | I guess that the question is whether we store information about the
> | > | appearance of the document in the document itself, or in an external file
> | > | ("layout file") ?
> | > | The former is better if you want to w
Herbert Voss wrote:
>
> Dekel Tsur wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:46:07PM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
> > > > | > | Since we are continuously adding new features to LyX, reLyX stays behind,
> > > > | > | so a lyx->latex->lyx cycle can loose information.
> > >
> > > as I said: from a use
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 04:48:19PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | Why not ?
> |
> | I guess that the question is whether we store information about the
> | appearance of the document in the document itself, or in an external file
> | ("layout file")
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 04:43:42PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> > no patches there...
>
> If only reLyX was written in python...
Go ahead. Rewrite it in Algol if it will help. :-)
Most of my time on LyX is spent on the Literate support, various bug
fixes and the spec file right now.
I will prob
> > You need it if you work on a document with a coauthor which doesn't have LyX.
>
> this is the only reason??
That's a pretty good reason. I won't get food if this breaks...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dekel Tsur wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:46:07PM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
> > > | > | Since we are continuously adding new features to LyX, reLyX stays behind,
> > > | > | so a lyx->latex->lyx cycle can loose information.
> >
> > as I said: from a users sight lyx->latex is only importan
> to whom? it's obviously that la(tex)->lyx is a nice thing,
> but tell me the users who really(!) need this way of
> conversion.
Everybody co-operating with LyXless LaTeX users.
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:46:07PM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
> > | > | Since we are continuously adding new features to LyX, reLyX stays behind,
> > | > | so a lyx->latex->lyx cycle can loose information.
>
> as I said: from a users sight lyx->latex is only important
> to find critical errors o
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 10:18:25AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | BTW, why 2-4 should be stored in the lyx file ?
> | It is more reasonable to have them in the layout file.
>
> No, never in the layout file.
Why not ?
I guess that the question is whether we store information about the
app
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 02:30:12PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > | The main problem we currently have is that reLyX is almost not
> | > | maintained.
> | >
> | > Then obviously the conversion from latex to lyx
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:01:22PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> Ok, document specific words that the spellchecker should ignore?
> How will you store those in the latex document?
>
> %% LyX local words
> %% bla, lir, foo, var
>
> ??
>
> sure relyx can handle this, but I stil claim tha
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 02:30:12PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | The main problem we currently have is that reLyX is almost not
> | maintained.
>
> Then obviously the conversion from latex to lyx is not that
> important... at least not important for someone to step up and do the
> work.
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:24:18PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 06:46:55PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> >
> > We gain close to nothing by having the LyX format be latex.
>
> The main problem we currently have is that reLyX is almost not maintained.
> Since we are con
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 06:46:55PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> We gain close to nothing by having the LyX format be latex.
The main problem we currently have is that reLyX is almost not maintained.
Since we are continuously adding new features to LyX, reLyX stays behind,
so a lyx->late
> > We gain close to nothing by having the LyX format be latex.
>
> Let away the "close to" and I can agree with the above!
"close to" is fine. It's easier to convert LaTeX diehards with a file
format they know. But in general, both of you are right...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz .
On 07-Aug-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> We gain close to nothing by having the LyX format be latex.
Let away the "close to" and I can agree with the above!
And this will be the last mail on this subject from my part I don't
go that path down again. People should studdy the mailing list arc
> > - formula were not XML-ised at all (It looked a bit harder and
> > somebody was reorganizing the code : is it over ?)
>
> About this, I know that Jose is in vacations, but does someone know if it is
> planned to have math formulas translated to MathML when a DocBook file is
> exported to SG
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 06:19:00PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | > Personally, I think it best to have lyx store its files as a valid latex files
> | > (using latex comments for storing some information).
> | > I know that this has been discus
Gaillard Pierre-Olivier a écrit :
> [...]
> - formula were not XML-ised at all (It looked a bit harder and
> somebody was reorganizing the code : is it over ?)
About this, I know that Jose is in vacations, but does someone know if it is
planned to have math formulas translated to MathML when a
John Weiss a écrit :
> Once we do design an XML-based LyX format, I suggest we document the
> format using XSL. There's no magic around XSL: it's just an XML
> document that uses a format designed for defining other XML formats.
> I'll even volunteer to work on it (I'd like to improve my XML sk
fix release where ONLY bugfixes should come in!
> > >
> > > We could have the simple compability code in the fix releases. But not
> > > the real format changes of course.
> >
> > I'd really like to see an XML format for 1.3 ... as it would make things
> Personally, I think it best to have lyx store its files as a valid latex files
> (using latex comments for storing some information).
> I know that this has been discussed before. What were the arguments against
> it ? (complexity of the parser?)
That's one.
The next one is that there are thin
On 07-Aug-2001 Dekel Tsur wrote:
> I know that this has been discussed before. What were the arguments against
> it ? (complexity of the parser?)
And not only one time. Please have a look at the mailing-list-archive.
Jürgen
--
-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-._-.
tween DTD's. No need to duplicate those efforts --- there's more
than enough for LyX do deal with.
BTW: I think, with all of the file format changes, that maybe it's
time to modularize the file reading/writing parts of the code and
create a "translator" binary
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 03:27:53PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, John Levon wrote:
>
> > > No, I don't think you understand what I mean by XML-like. Let's call
> > > it well-formed XML instead.
>
> I guess the point is that we don't want to a full-blown XML parser i
John Levon wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 03:27:53PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
>
> > One problem with XML is that a full parser carries a pretty big
> > foot-print along with it, and it also introduces Yet Another
> > Dependency. Finally, no good free C++ XML parsers are really
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 03:27:53PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> One problem with XML is that a full parser carries a pretty big
> foot-print along with it, and it also introduces Yet Another
> Dependency. Finally, no good free C++ XML parsers are really available
> at this point to my
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, John Levon wrote:
> > No, I don't think you understand what I mean by XML-like. Let's call
> > it well-formed XML instead.
>
> I must admit I'm totally confused then ;)
>
> If it is XML, then it is well-formed XML and vice versa. So we are using
> an XML format (good that's
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 02:50:13PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> No, I don't think you understand what I mean by XML-like. Let's call
> it well-formed XML instead.
I must admit I'm totally confused then ;)
If it is XML, then it is well-formed XML and vice versa. So we are using
an XML for
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 02:13:40PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | What ha[p[enned to the XML patches ?
>
> mmm... I don't want XML... but only something XML-like.
why ?
having something XML-like adds none of the advantages of XML[1], and all the
disadvantages[2]
It's like having a coat
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 10:05:32AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | that we should change format inside a "fix" release and x > 0 will be a
> | fix release where ONLY bugfixes should come in!
>
> We could have the simple compability code in the fix releases.
On 06-Aug-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> That will continue to happen until we have a format that makes sense.
> (note that for this change it is possible to make 1.2.x read the new
> format with just a couple of small tweeks:
> - ignore the begin_doc_parameters and end_doc_parameters
> - use
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> I have a couple of things that I want to do early in the 1.3.x series.
>
> - add a \begin_doc_parameters ... \end_doc_parameters
> - add a \begin_paragraph ... \end_paragraph
> - add a \begin_par_parameters ... \end_par_parameters
so you want to change the file-fo
62 matches
Mail list logo
