Jose Abilio Oliveira Matos wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 11:36:10AM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
> > Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Let's just keep it as it is now: "ERT" Encapsulated Raw Text
> > >
> > > Okokok...
> >
> > I thought you are the math guru, why don't you write
> >
> > $ok^3\
Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > Let's just keep it as it is now: "ERT" Encapsulated Raw Text
>
> Okokok...
I thought you are the math guru, why don't you write
$ok^3\ldot$
i see, the problem is the first uppercase letter ...
Herbert :-)
--
http://www.educat.hu-berlin.de/~voss/lyx/
> admitting that LyX can't do it all and providing some way of getting
> under the hood. I always felt that the whole "EvilRedText" thing was
> just an apeasement of the M$ Word crowd, anyhow.
>
> Still, "Raw" or "PassThru" seems fine by me.
Go for 'Raw'.
This way we would spare us a flame war
On 30 Jul 2001, Lars Gullik [iso-8859-1] Bjønnes wrote:
> "Kayvan A. Sylvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | I think it was the brain-fart from Lars(?) who proposed re-defining
> | the ERT acronym to mean Embedded Raw Text.
>
> Nope... I just come to the conclusion that "ERT" would be the best
>
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 11:36:49PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> Amazingly it seems like we have reached a kind of consensus that ERT is
> better than 666, and this within two days! What the fuck? I had expected this
> thread to continue for weeks!?! Normally trivial details take foreve
Amazingly it seems like we have reached a kind of consensus that ERT is
better than 666, and this within two days! What the fuck? I had expected this
thread to continue for weeks!?! Normally trivial details take forever to
settle because everybody has an opinion. Hmm. I have to practice that mind
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 09:28:18PM +0200, Ronny Buchmann wrote:
> * Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001-07-30 16:26] schrieb:
> > > | Only to those people who know all the various in-jokes and references.
> > >
> > > eh? '666'?
> > >
> > > what do _you_ think/assosiate when you see "666"?
>
* Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001-07-30 16:26] schrieb:
> > | Only to those people who know all the various in-jokes and references.
> >
> > eh? '666'?
> >
> > what do _you_ think/assosiate when you see "666"?
>
i only think "hä, was is los?" or for non germans "what? what's going on he
"Garst R. Reese" wrote:
>
> Mike Ressler wrote:
> >
> > On 30 Jul 2001, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >
> > > > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > Lars> Or just change the "ERT" acronym to be something else. Eloquent
> > > Lars> Red Text, Encumbering Red Tex
Mike Ressler wrote:
>
> On 30 Jul 2001, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> > > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Lars> Or just change the "ERT" acronym to be something else. Eloquent
> > Lars> Red Text, Encumbering Red Text, Extension Red Text...
> >
> > Encapsul
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 04:31:28PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | I had to explain '666' more than once and I do think 'Raw' is a much better
> | name of that beast.
>
> pun intended?
>
> Why not just rename the inset label to "The Beast"
"the wickedest inset in the world"
john
--
"I
> | I had to explain '666' more than once and I do think 'Raw' is a much better
> | name of that beast.
>
> pun intended?
Sure... puns are not frowned upon hereabout...
> Why not just rename the inset label to "The Beast"
For exactly the same raeson. _I_ would not know what 'The Beast' is in
c
> | Only to those people who know all the various in-jokes and references.
>
> eh? '666'?
>
> what do _you_ think/assosiate when you see "666"?
Actually, knowledge about the deeper meaning of '666' seems not to be too
widespread among all the supporters of a few 'other' religions and the
atheis
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:27:06PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Amir Karger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | To me, though, markup seems like it's even more marked up than LyX, not more
> | raw. I'd go with raw.
>
> I still think '666' gives the right assosiations.
Only to those people
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:41:35PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
>
> > The "TeX inset" on the other hand, is clear and intuitive.
>
> In a DocBook document "TeX" won't make much sense.
Whoa. Never thought of that. In my mind, the LyX backend is always La
On 29-Jul-2001 Garst R. Reese wrote:
>> TeX is better, because it's no more like the eval red text.
> It goes away anyway. I like the 666, maybe the same people trying to ban
> Harry Potter will give lyx some publicity also :)
Oh you have the same problems there, people seeing "Harry Potter" as
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 08:14:41PM -0400, Amir Karger wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 10:23:53AM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> > > Herbert Voss wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The 666 name is fun, but
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 08:14:41PM -0400, Amir Karger wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 10:23:53AM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> > Herbert Voss wrote:
> > >
> > > "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
> > > > changing
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 10:23:53AM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> Herbert Voss wrote:
> >
> > "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" wrote:
> > >
> > > The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
> > > changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
> > > is not ve
Herbert Voss wrote:
>
> "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" wrote:
> >
> > The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
> > changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
> > is not very intuitive either, but at least more established?
>
> TeX is better, becaus
"Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" wrote:
>
> The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
> changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
> is not very intuitive either, but at least more established?
TeX is better, because it's no more like the eval red tex
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 02:32:00PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
> changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
> is not very intuitive either, but at least more established?
>
> Greets
22 matches
Mail list logo
