Re: Lyx logo for cross-stiching
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Uwe Stöhr wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My girlfriend wants to make me a present. Therefore she asked me to give her a good resolution LyX logo. Can somebody help me? Attached some LyX-logos. I've uploaded and linked to the logos from this page http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/Logotype /Christian PS. It'd be nice to add some info to the page about who made the logos... and what kind of animal this is :-) -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Lyx logo for cross-stiching
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > My girlfriend wants to make me a present. Therefore she asked me to give > > her a > > good resolution LyX logo. > > > > Can somebody help me? > > Attached some LyX-logos. I've uploaded and linked to the logos from this page http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/Logotype /Christian PS. It'd be nice to add some info to the page about who made the logos... and what kind of animal this is :-) -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Swedish translation?
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Angus Leeming wrote: Peter Landgren wrote: Interested in a Swedish transaltion of Lyx? Ja, om lopp! Undrar vad Angus menar med om lopp egentligen ;-) Jag tror han är entusiastisk :-) /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Swedish translation?
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Angus Leeming wrote: > Peter Landgren wrote: > > Interested in a Swedish transaltion of Lyx? > > Ja, om lopp! Undrar vad Angus menar med om lopp egentligen ;-) Jag tror han är entusiastisk :-) /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Using LyX
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Hal Kierstead wrote: I am trying to get started using LyX for writing mathematics. The program looks very promising, but I cannot import existing LaTex files into LyX in a usable form. All the theorems and proofs appear as drt. Is there a way to resolve this problem? Please ask that question on the user's list instead, you'll get much more help there! See this page http://www.lyx.org/internet/mailing.php3 cheers /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Using LyX
On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Hal Kierstead wrote: > I am trying to get started using LyX for writing mathematics. The > program looks very promising, but I cannot import existing LaTex > files into LyX in a usable form. All the theorems and proofs appear > as drt. Is there a way to resolve this problem? Please ask that question on the user's list instead, you'll get much more help there! See this page http://www.lyx.org/internet/mailing.php3 cheers /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Annotating documents
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Stephen Harris wrote: I am looking at this from the vantage of the original LyX file creator. He doesn't need them to use LyX to proofread his document and return a commented ghostscript file which he can then incorporate into his LyX document. ... Having a means of annotating those docs without using LyX makes Lyx a more versatile and valuable tool, IMO. The comments so generated can just as easily be incorporated into the next generation of the original LyX doc. It seems you are looking at this from the vantage of everybody involved uses LyX, which would not apply to the common student thesis setting. I think you're right that this ability would indeed make LyX easier to use as a document preparation tool between collaborating authors. When I used to write articles etc, this kind of functionality would definitely have come in handy for the people I collaborated with. Stephen But lots of academic people have ghostscript, and if they Stephen don't it is a much smaller install than *Tex. Like Christian said, acroread is a safer bet. Well, as I mentioned in my post to Christian, I didn't understand how he drew his conclusion from what I wrote. My apologies for that, I'd been much to quick when reading your posts (I've been on a mini vacation and only followed the thread briefly). I think you're right that only Acrobat Pro allows you to add comments, but I was hoping that *you* knew something I didn't :-) Anyway, I still think you should bring this question to the attention of the user's list. There are many more people following that list, and perhaps one of them knows of other solutions to this problem. Or other tools that allow annotation of a PDF. Or perhaps a tool that can extract the comments out of a PDF. [...] I think lyx converting a file to postscript which maintains equation formatting which can be commented on with erasable text by a reviewer is useful for some LyX authors because it is superior to the Word html method and less expensive than using the Adobe comware, although the Adobe conversion is very accurate. Linux flpsed can open and comment pdf docs too. It this works in the Windows port I will post a message to the Wiki and find a link to download flps.exe which is 500k. If you like, we could also place a (read-only) version of flps.exe on the wiki site (to make sure the link doesn't expire). Let me know if you'd like help with that. regards /Christian PS. Sorry for continuing the thread, I'll just answer your earlier post and then let it lapse as well :-) -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Annotating documents
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Stephen Harris wrote: [...] I said that a $469 piece of software, Adobe Writer Pro, not to be confused with its cheap help $200 Adobe Writer, can produce docs that turn on erasable comments when the doc is viewed by free Reader. Sorry about that, as I said earlier I was too quick... PS. Maybe this discussion belongs to the user's list? It'll definitely get a wider audience there, and lots of people must encounter this problem all the time there. I think it was you who asked for help checking for discrepancies from the upgrade of Wiki versions? That was indeed I... however you had me completetly fooled about this, since the change tracking page is not among the pages I have upgraded yet.. http://wiki.lyx.org/test/wiki/devel/pmwiki.php/Site/Search?n=Site%2FSearchq=change+tracking I assume that my instructions were too unclear and that you started checking on the pages of the original wiki *ouch*. My apologies for that. Maybe I need to send out another message clarifying *where* the upgraded pages can be found? [...] Anyway I was tuned into the doc mailing list. And although flpsed and change tracking are germane to documentaion at a more abstract level, I understand preserving this list for documentation about how to use LyX and not getting into the more nebulous regions of LyX's ultimate purpose in life as it trods the upgrade path to enlightenment. :-) Oh, that part doesn't bother me... I just think you'd get better answers and more response if you brought up the issue on the user's list :-) cheers /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Annotating documents
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Stephen Harris wrote: > I am looking at this from the vantage of the original LyX file creator. > He doesn't need them to use LyX to proofread his document and return a > commented ghostscript file which he can then incorporate into his LyX > document. ... > Having a means of annotating those docs without using LyX makes Lyx a > more versatile and valuable tool, IMO. The comments so generated can > just as easily be incorporated into the next generation of the original > LyX doc. It seems you are looking at this from the vantage of everybody > involved uses LyX, which would not apply to the common student thesis > setting. I think you're right that this ability would indeed make LyX "easier" to use as a document preparation tool between collaborating authors. When I used to write articles etc, this kind of functionality would definitely have come in handy for the people I collaborated with. > > Stephen> But lots of academic people have ghostscript, and if they > > Stephen> don't it is a much smaller install than *Tex. > > > > Like Christian said, acroread is a safer bet. > > > > Well, as I mentioned in my post to Christian, I didn't understand how he > drew his conclusion from what I wrote. My apologies for that, I'd been much to quick when reading your posts (I've been on a mini vacation and only followed the thread briefly). I think you're right that only Acrobat Pro allows you to add comments, but I was hoping that *you* knew something I didn't :-) Anyway, I still think you should bring this question to the attention of the user's list. There are many more people following that list, and perhaps one of them knows of other solutions to this problem. Or other tools that allow annotation of a PDF. Or perhaps a tool that can extract the comments out of a PDF. [...] > I think lyx converting a file to postscript which maintains equation > formatting which can be commented on with erasable text by a reviewer is > useful for some LyX authors because it is superior to the Word html > method and less expensive than using the Adobe comware, although the > Adobe conversion is very accurate. > > Linux flpsed can open and comment pdf docs too. It this works > in the Windows port I will post a message to the Wiki and find a > link to download flps.exe which is 500k. If you like, we could also place a (read-only) version of flps.exe on the wiki site (to make sure the link doesn't expire). Let me know if you'd like help with that. regards /Christian PS. Sorry for continuing the thread, I'll just answer your earlier post and then let it lapse as well :-) -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Annotating documents
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Stephen Harris wrote: [...] > I said that a $469 piece of software, Adobe Writer Pro, not to be > confused with its cheap help $200 Adobe Writer, can produce docs > that turn on erasable comments when the doc is viewed by free Reader. Sorry about that, as I said earlier I was too quick... > > PS. Maybe this discussion belongs to the user's list? It'll definitely > > get a wider audience there, and lots of people must encounter this > > problem all the time there. > > I think it was you who asked for help checking for discrepancies > from the upgrade of Wiki versions? That was indeed I... however you had me completetly fooled about this, since the change tracking page is not among the pages I have upgraded yet.. http://wiki.lyx.org/test/wiki/devel/pmwiki.php/Site/Search?n=Site%2FSearch=change+tracking I assume that my instructions were too unclear and that you started checking on the pages of the original wiki *ouch*. My apologies for that. Maybe I need to send out another message clarifying *where* the upgraded pages can be found? [...] > Anyway I was tuned into the doc mailing list. And although flpsed and > change tracking are germane to documentaion at a more abstract level, I > understand preserving this list for documentation about how to use LyX > and not getting into the more nebulous regions of LyX's ultimate purpose > in life as it trods the upgrade path to enlightenment. :-) Oh, that part doesn't bother me... I just think you'd get better answers and more response if you brought up the issue on the user's list :-) cheers /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Annotating documents
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Stephen Harris wrote: Stephen I found a couple of free softwares for Linux, but none for Stephen Windows for adding comments to ps and pdf docs. That has Stephen changed and flpsed is available for Windows/Cygwin. Since StephenLyX can save as .ps, flspsed seems a higher fidelity approach. Why couldn't people use the .lyx file directly and add comments to that? JMarc The originator of the document will be using LyX and has an easy option of exporting to postscript which I think retains the formatting better than going through html and Word. Another associate contributor to the document only needs ghostscript (in the Path) and fl_ps_ed.exe which is 500k for Win XP. Sorry if I've totally missed the issue here... IIRC, you said that the free version of acroread allowed adding comments. If that's the case, why can't the main author export his document as PDF, and let the reviewers add their comments using acroread (or an alternative tool if one exists). From that, I assume you'd like a tool that can *impor* the comments back from the PDF into the LyX file? (Or am I missing something here?) Primarily, I don't understand why you're aiming for PS instead of PDF, (in my experience professors aren't too keen on installing programs, not even ghostscript). cheers /Christian PS. Maybe this discussion belongs to the user's list? It'll definitely get a wider audience there, and lots of people must encounter this problem all the time there. -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Annotating documents
On Tue, 2 Aug 2005, Stephen Harris wrote: > > Stephen> I found a couple of free softwares for Linux, but none for > > Stephen> Windows for adding comments to ps and pdf docs. That has > > Stephen> changed and flpsed is available for Windows/Cygwin. Since > > Stephen>LyX can save as .ps, flspsed seems a higher fidelity approach. > > > > Why couldn't people use the .lyx file directly and add comments to that? > > > > JMarc > > > > The originator of the document will be using LyX and has an > easy option of exporting to postscript which I think retains the > formatting better than going through html and Word. Another > associate contributor to the document only needs ghostscript > (in the Path) and fl_ps_ed.exe which is 500k for Win XP. Sorry if I've totally missed the issue here... IIRC, you said that the free version of acroread allowed adding comments. If that's the case, why can't the main author export his document as PDF, and let the reviewers add their comments using acroread (or an alternative tool if one exists). >From that, I assume you'd like a tool that can *impor* the comments back from the PDF into the LyX file? (Or am I missing something here?) Primarily, I don't understand why you're aiming for PS instead of PDF, (in my experience professors aren't too keen on installing programs, not even ghostscript). cheers /Christian PS. Maybe this discussion belongs to the user's list? It'll definitely get a wider audience there, and lots of people must encounter this problem all the time there. -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Help with testing upgraded wiki (developer's field)
Hi all Background: A while back I started the process of upgrading the LyX wiki to a new version of the wiki engine. Right now the wiki uses PmWiki-v1, but once I'm done we will be using PmWiki-v2. This is a major upgrade of the wiki engine and I am at the same time restructuring the wiki slightly. This upgrade will therefore take some time, and I'm going to try really hard to not disrupt the operation of the existing wiki. I'd very much appreciate help in this process, so those who want to can help me with testing the upgraded installation. And don't worry about your skills - *anyone* can help with this (if you code or write documentation, please devote your effort to LyX directly instead:-) So exactly what would I like help with? Well, let me first explain that besides upgrading the wiki engine, I'm also moving all pages related to LyX development into a separate wiki. In fact, I've already created a test installation of the wiki with a separate wiki field for the developers. This developer's field is located here during the initial testing phase http://wiki.lyx.org/test/wiki/devel/pmwiki.php/Devel/Devel and it uses the new wiki engine with the new markup syntax. You can help by looking at the pages in this field and see if things don't seem to work (compared with how they work in original wiki). I'm especially interested in links that doesn't work. Such links typically go to pages that have not been moved to the development field, e.g. LyX.Welcome. Since they should stay in the user's field, they will have to be fixed by putting 'lyx:' in front of the link. Here's an example of a working link: [[lyx:LyX.Welcome]] This link goes to the page LyX.Welcome in the user's field. It will work regardless of which field it's placed in. In the future, any pages in the user's wiki that refer to pages in development field will similarly have to prefix the link with 'devel:'. So [[devel:DevelInfo.Cursor]] will link to the page DevelInfo.Cursor in the development field. This link will also work regardless of which field it is in. What's this with the [[...]] you might wonder... well, the new syntax for wiki assumes that everything within [[...]] is a link. Words such as CamelCase are still recognized as links, but I plan to disable this eventually. So if you feel really helpful, please go ahead and put all links you can find on wiki pages within square braces :-) The important thing is however to fix stuff that is broken. So if you find something, let me know about it so I can fix it (if you'd like, please go ahead and fix broken links). When you've looked at a page and found that it seems fine, please add any notes about it here http://wiki.lyx.org/test/wiki/devel/pmwiki.php/Site/PageStatus For pages that have problems, please let me know about it on this list. That's it for now... once the new development field works reasonbly well - when lots of pages are listed in Site.PageStatus as ok - I'll install it under this URI (wont work until then): http://wiki.lyx.org/test/devel/pmwiki.php/Site/PageStatus I will also retire the corresponding pages in the current lyx wiki, making them redirect to the new field. Once this is done, I plan to repeat the process for one or two of the normal groups in the current wiki before I finally upgrade the whole thing. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Help with testing upgraded wiki (developer's field)
Hi all Background: A while back I started the process of upgrading the LyX wiki to a new version of the "wiki engine". Right now the wiki uses PmWiki-v1, but once I'm done we will be using PmWiki-v2. This is a major upgrade of the wiki engine and I am at the same time restructuring the wiki slightly. This upgrade will therefore take some time, and I'm going to try really hard to not disrupt the operation of the existing wiki. I'd very much appreciate help in this process, so those who want to can help me with testing the upgraded installation. And don't worry about your skills - *anyone* can help with this (if you code or write documentation, please devote your effort to LyX directly instead:-) So exactly what would I like help with? Well, let me first explain that besides upgrading the wiki engine, I'm also moving all pages related to LyX development into a separate wiki. In fact, I've already created a test installation of the wiki with a separate "wiki field" for the developers. This developer's field is located here during the initial testing phase http://wiki.lyx.org/test/wiki/devel/pmwiki.php/Devel/Devel and it uses the new wiki engine with the new markup syntax. You can help by looking at the pages in this field and see if things don't seem to work (compared with how they work in original wiki). I'm especially interested in links that doesn't work. Such links typically go to pages that have not been moved to the development field, e.g. LyX.Welcome. Since they should stay in the user's field, they will have to be fixed by putting 'lyx:' in front of the link. Here's an example of a working link: [[lyx:LyX.Welcome]] This link goes to the page LyX.Welcome in the user's field. It will work regardless of which field it's placed in. In the future, any pages in the user's wiki that refer to pages in development field will similarly have to prefix the link with 'devel:'. So [[devel:DevelInfo.Cursor]] will link to the page DevelInfo.Cursor in the development field. This link will also work regardless of which field it is in. What's this with the [[...]] you might wonder... well, the new syntax for wiki assumes that everything within [[...]] is a link. Words such as CamelCase are still recognized as links, but I plan to disable this eventually. So if you feel really helpful, please go ahead and put all links you can find on wiki pages within square braces :-) The important thing is however to fix stuff that is broken. So if you find something, let me know about it so I can fix it (if you'd like, please go ahead and fix broken links). When you've looked at a page and found that it seems fine, please add any notes about it here http://wiki.lyx.org/test/wiki/devel/pmwiki.php/Site/PageStatus For pages that have problems, please let me know about it on this list. That's it for now... once the new development field works reasonbly well - when lots of pages are listed in Site.PageStatus as ok - I'll install it under this URI (wont work until then): http://wiki.lyx.org/test/devel/pmwiki.php/Site/PageStatus I will also "retire" the corresponding pages in the current lyx wiki, making them redirect to the new field. Once this is done, I plan to repeat the process for one or two of the normal groups in the current wiki before I finally upgrade the whole thing. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Wiki formatting question
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Angus Leeming wrote: Christian, can we do anything to make this http://wiki.lyx.org/Windows/PageList look better? I'd like to see: * Windows: LyX on Windows (LyX/Win) o LyX136: LyX 1.3.6 for Windows o LyX136pre: Prerelease of LyX 1.3.6 for Windows o WindowsSetup: Installing LyX on Windows XP and 2000 o Bugs: This page documents the ones known to exist. o Instantpreview: Instant preview of Math on LyXWin Done. Although I did it manually. The markup T* SomePage creates a link to SomePage and appends the first line of text from that page as a teaser (hence the 'T' in the markup). What I did now wsa simply to write what you wanted as per the list abov, and manullay cretae the links to each page. Just edit the page to see how I did it. A nicer solution would have been to edit each of the referred pages and fixed the text in the first line instead. Or, I think the teaser markup can take the name of an an anchor and use that to select the teaser line. You'd write something like T* SomePage#anchor when you create the list, and then in the destination page you'd write [[#anchor]]This is the teaser text... Not sure if this will work, and for now you got the temporary fix. /Christian PS. I'm on vacation so I might be slow in responding to mails... happy hacking in Paris! -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Wiki formatting question
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, Angus Leeming wrote: > Christian, can we do anything to make this > > http://wiki.lyx.org/Windows/PageList > > look better? I'd like to see: > > * Windows: LyX on Windows (LyX/Win) >o LyX136: LyX 1.3.6 for Windows >o LyX136pre: Prerelease of LyX 1.3.6 for Windows >o WindowsSetup: Installing LyX on Windows XP and 2000 >o Bugs: This page documents the ones known to exist. >o Instantpreview: Instant preview of Math on LyXWin Done. Although I did it manually. The markup T* SomePage creates a link to SomePage and appends the first line of text from that page as a "teaser" (hence the 'T' in the markup). What I did now wsa simply to write what you wanted as per the list abov, and manullay cretae the links to each page. Just edit the page to see how I did it. A nicer solution would have been to edit each of the referred pages and fixed the text in the first line instead. Or, I think the teaser markup can take the name of an an anchor and use that to select the teaser line. You'd write something like T* SomePage#anchor when you create the list, and then in the "destination" page you'd write [[#anchor]]This is the teaser text... Not sure if this will work, and for now you got the temporary fix. /Christian PS. I'm on vacation so I might be slow in responding to mails... happy hacking in Paris! -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LFUN documentation (Was: Auto generation of lfun wiki page)
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, G. Milde wrote: Hmm... are you suggesting that *only* the short description should go into the source eventually? Wouldn't that too easily lead to the long and the short descriptions diverging? Yes. This seems to me as a good tradeoff between ease of work for the developers and user friendly documentation. The threat of diverging always exists. However with the source containing either the full description or no documentation at all, I fear the divergence to be between the function and the documentation. Hmm... I don't quite see that, as long as the documention is close to the relevant source. OTOH, I guess LyXAction.C doesn't really contain the source of the LFUNs, but rather just lists/declares them. Anyway, I'm fine with keeping a terse description in the source, and that's also what I think we should start with. With a short description in the source, it might become easier [..] It should at least be possible to get developers to add a note to the short description that they've changed something:-) I see, a separate LyX document for the lfuns (partially generated). Would there be one such document for each language? Strings in the source should use the po mechanism, the generating script as well, the template lyx file would have to be translated similar to all other help documents. I'm not familiar with the po-mechanism... as long as theres *some* way of handling it. Anyway, I think the way forward now is simply to start compiling the raw information... Eh... did you have an up-to-date list of lfuns btw? I have copied and converted to an ASCII/CSV format your list from the wiki: # The lists of LFUNs below were derived from from # releaes lyx-1_3_3 of [59]src/LyXAction.C. Eh... don't you think we should generate a new list from 1.3.5 (1.3.6?)? You find it in the pyLyX package on the PyClient page. (I can mail you a copy if you wish.) That'd be good, unless we decide to create a new list. Hmm... maybe by looking at diffs of LyXAction.C we can see if any lfuns have changed between 1.3.3 and HEAD? /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LFUN documentation
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: chr == chr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With a short description in the source, it might become easier [..] chr It should at least be possible to get developers to add a note to chr the short description that they've changed something:-) Sure :) I think that if you manage to provide a reasonably up-to-date doc for 1.3.x (or better 1.4.x), we will be able to enforce updating of the lfuns. chr Hmm... maybe by looking at diffs of LyXAction.C we can see if any chr lfuns have changed between 1.3.3 and HEAD? You will see new and old lfuns, but some work is needed since the structure has changed. Ok, I guess extracting everything from LyXAction again might be in order then, i.e. writing a small awk or sed script. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LFUN documentation (Was: Auto generation of lfun wiki page)
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, G. Milde wrote: > > Hmm... are you suggesting that *only* the short description should go > > into the source eventually? Wouldn't that too easily lead to the long > > and the short descriptions diverging? > > Yes. This seems to me as a good tradeoff between ease of work for the > developers and user friendly documentation. > > The threat of diverging always exists. However with the source containing > either the full description or no documentation at all, I fear the > divergence to be between the function and the documentation. Hmm... I don't quite see that, as long as the documention is "close" to the relevant source. OTOH, I guess LyXAction.C doesn't really contain the source of the LFUNs, but rather just lists/declares them. Anyway, I'm fine with keeping a terse description in the source, and that's also what I think we should start with. > > With a short description in the source, it might become easier [..] It should at least be possible to get developers to add a note to the short description that they've changed something:-) > > I see, a separate LyX document for the lfuns (partially generated). Would > > there be one such document for each language? > > Strings in the source should use the po mechanism, the generating script > as well, the template lyx file would have to be translated similar to > all other help documents. I'm not familiar with the po-mechanism... as long as theres *some* way of handling it. > > Anyway, I think the way forward now is simply to start compiling the raw > > information... Eh... did you have an "up-to-date" list of lfuns btw? > > I have copied and converted to an ASCII/CSV format your list from the wiki: > > # The lists of LFUNs below were derived from from > # releaes lyx-1_3_3 of [59]src/LyXAction.C. Eh... don't you think we should generate a new list from 1.3.5 (1.3.6?)? > You find it in the pyLyX package on the PyClient page. (I can mail you a > copy if you wish.) That'd be good, unless we decide to create a new list. Hmm... maybe by looking at diffs of LyXAction.C we can see if any lfuns have changed between 1.3.3 and HEAD? /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LFUN documentation
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>>> "chr" == chr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> > With a short description in the source, it might become easier > >> [..] > > chr> It should at least be possible to get developers to add a note to > chr> the short description that they've changed something:-) > > Sure :) > > I think that if you manage to provide a reasonably up-to-date doc for > 1.3.x (or better 1.4.x), we will be able to enforce updating of the > lfuns. > > chr> Hmm... maybe by looking at diffs of LyXAction.C we can see if any > chr> lfuns have changed between 1.3.3 and HEAD? > > You will see new and old lfuns, but some work is needed since the > structure has changed. Ok, I guess extracting everything from LyXAction again might be in order then, i.e. writing a small awk or sed script. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LFUN documentation (Was: Auto generation of lfun wiki page)
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, G. Milde wrote: But we don't want that kind of documentation for lfuns, we want documentation that is accesible from inside lyx. IMHO, we need both, a short description for tooltips or the status line and a full description with markup and links etc. Sure, but I was really wondering about what markup to use in the actual description. When you say emacs' describe-function, are you referring to how a function is typically described, or the *markup* that's used... The short description should be in the source (precisely, it should be possible to generate it from the data in the source) so that something like describe-function (which is what the old apropos function should be called BTW) could give a short help. IMHO, the short description doesnot need any markup. (And if a see-also should be contained in the Synopsis (I would put See Also only in the full doc), an extraction script could easily convert a lfun-name to a link.) Hmm... are you suggesting that *only* the short description should go into the source eventually? Wouldn't that too easily lead to the long and the short descriptions diverging? The full description should use LyX markup (as we are all LyX users). It could be a revived and improved References.lyx document or a separate lyx file for every lfun. (see attachment for example). I see, a separate LyX document for the lfuns (partially generated). Would there be one such document for each language? Anyway, I think the way forward now is simply to start compiling the raw information... Eh... did you have an up-to-date list of lfuns btw? /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LFUN documentation (Was: Auto generation of lfun wiki page)
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, G. Milde wrote: > > > But we don't want that kind of documentation for lfuns, we want > > > documentation that is accesible from inside lyx. > > IMHO, we need both, a short description for tooltips or the status line > and a full description with markup and links etc. > > > Sure, but I was really wondering about what markup to use in the actual > > description. When you say emacs' "describe-function", are you referring to > > how a function is typically described, or the *markup* that's used... > > The short description should be in the source (precisely, it should be > possible to generate it from the data in the source) so that something > like "describe-function" (which is what the old "apropos" function should > be called BTW) could give a short help. > > IMHO, the short description doesnot need any markup. (And if a see-also > should be contained in the Synopsis (I would put See Also only in the > full doc), an extraction script could easily convert a lfun-name to a > link.) Hmm... are you suggesting that *only* the short description should go into the source eventually? Wouldn't that too easily lead to the long and the short descriptions diverging? > The full description should use LyX markup (as we are all LyX users). It > could be a "revived" and improved References.lyx document or a separate > lyx file for every lfun. (see attachment for example). I see, a separate LyX document for the lfuns (partially generated). Would there be one such document for each language? Anyway, I think the way forward now is simply to start compiling the raw information... Eh... did you have an "up-to-date" list of lfuns btw? /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Auto generation of lfun wiki page
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Georg Baum wrote: Except delaying it of course... Maybe. Of course we get delays if lfuns need to be discussed on the list, but that is independent from the documentation format. If we don't want that we should freeze the lfun documentation until 1.4.0 is released. Would it be ok to send questions about lfuns to the devel-list? Or are we better served by not distracting the developers with this? Then we get delays if somebody without CVS access wants patches to be applied, but that could be minimized if e.g. Christian has CVS access. I don't have CVS access, but that's probably a minor detail. Anyway, my feeling is that we'd be better off starting with a separate documentation for the lfuns - mainly because it'd be quite easy to actually get started. We could create the bulk of the documentation this way, and then later on store it in the source in a suitable manner. The remaining question is then if asking questions about the lfuns would be too distracting (I don't think so, but I'd better ask). /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Auto generation of lfun wiki page
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005, Georg Baum wrote: > > Except delaying it of course... > > Maybe. Of course we get delays if lfuns need to be discussed on the list, > but that is independent from the documentation format. If we don't want > that we should freeze the lfun documentation until 1.4.0 is released. Would it be ok to send questions about lfuns to the devel-list? Or are we better served by not distracting the developers with this? > Then we get delays if somebody without CVS access wants patches to be > applied, but that could be minimized if e.g. Christian has CVS access. I don't have CVS access, but that's probably a minor detail. Anyway, my feeling is that we'd be better off starting with a separate documentation for the lfuns - mainly because it'd be quite easy to actually get started. We could create the bulk of the documentation this way, and then later on store it in the source in a suitable manner. The remaining question is then if asking questions about the lfuns would be too distracting (I don't think so, but I'd better ask). /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Auto generation of lfun wiki page
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: G == G Milde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And all of this is 1.5 stuff anyway. G Does this mean I have to wait another 2 years for documented lfuns G (or could this possibly also go to 1.4.x)? It may happen, but do not count on it. That is I suggested to start without waiting for support in main source :) It seems I opened a can of worms here :-) I haven't had time to digest all the posts yet, so I'll have to get back to you later on. Anyway, although I also feel that the documentation should (eventually) be stored in the source, I can see why now is not a good time for that. So creating a separate documentation for the lfuns might be a good way to start. And I guess there won't be too much happening with the lfuns between now and 1.5 anyway, so it shouldn't matter too much. In addition, if we write some documentation first, we'll have a better idea of how we'd like to go about storing it more permanently. I assume Gunter and I can pepper the devel-list with questions as to what the different lfuns actually do? (We might even be able to decipher this from the source - knock on wood) On a more practical aspect, this will have to wait a few days until I've started the transition of the devel pages to a so called wiki field. But this might be a useful test case for me in the transition to the new wiki engine. /Christian PS. As for Lars' comment about having to learn wiki markup, the writer - whoever it is - *will* have to learn some kind of markup. I don't see the need for lots of italics or bold, but I do expect it will be really useful to let an lfun-description refer to another lfun (producing a link). Here's an imaginary example for the lfun 'char-left' Moves one character to the left, also see [[char-right]]. where [[...]] would be used to refer to another lfun. From the perspective of wiki markup, this is simply a link to another page called 'char-right'. -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Auto generation of lfun wiki page
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>>> "G" == G Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> And all of this is 1.5 stuff anyway. > > G> Does this mean I have to wait another 2 years for documented lfuns > G> (or could this possibly also go to 1.4.x)? > > It may happen, but do not count on it. That is I suggested to start > without waiting for support in main source :) It seems I opened a can of worms here :-) I haven't had time to digest all the posts yet, so I'll have to get back to you later on. Anyway, although I also feel that the documentation should (eventually) be stored in the source, I can see why now is not a good time for that. So creating a separate documentation for the lfuns might be a good way to start. And I guess there won't be too much happening with the lfuns between now and 1.5 anyway, so it shouldn't matter too much. In addition, if we write some documentation first, we'll have a better idea of how we'd like to go about storing it more permanently. I assume Gunter and I can "pepper" the devel-list with questions as to what the different lfuns actually do? (We might even be able to decipher this from the source - knock on wood) On a more practical aspect, this will have to wait a few days until I've started the transition of the devel pages to a so called "wiki field". But this might be a useful test case for me in the transition to the new wiki engine. /Christian PS. As for Lars' comment about having to learn wiki markup, the writer - whoever it is - *will* have to learn some kind of markup. I don't see the need for lots of italics or bold, but I do expect it will be really useful to let an lfun-description refer to another lfun (producing a link). Here's an imaginary example for the lfun 'char-left' Moves one character to the left, also see [[char-right]]. where [[...]] would be used to refer to another lfun. From the perspective of wiki markup, this is simply a link to another page called 'char-right'. -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Auto generation of lfun wiki page (was: lfun documentation)
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, G. Milde wrote: On 8.06.05, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: G == G Milde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: G ... all the lfuns should have some usage doc (telling the G expected arguments). docstrings are gone in 1.4.0cvs. They were actually tooltips for the toolbar. Not only. They were also used by Christian to generate the lists of lfuns in the LyX Wiki. Going off on a slight tangent, what if we put some cursory documentation of the lfuns in the *source* code using wiki markup? Then I could write a simple script that periodically extracts that markup and inserts it into some suitable wiki pages? It's a bit off a hack, but might be useful in this particular instance. Especially since we'd avoid maintaining separate documentation of the lfuns, and anything that makes it easier for the developers to document changes to the lfun ought to be a good thing... /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Auto generation of lfun wiki page (was: lfun documentation)
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, G. Milde wrote: > On 8.06.05, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > >>>>> "G" == G Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > G> ... all the lfuns should have some usage doc (telling the > > G> expected arguments). > > > > docstrings are gone in 1.4.0cvs. They were actually tooltips for the > > toolbar. > > Not only. They were also used by Christian to generate the lists of > lfuns in the LyX Wiki. Going off on a slight tangent, what if we put some cursory documentation of the lfuns in the *source* code using wiki markup? Then I could write a simple script that periodically extracts that markup and inserts it into some suitable wiki pages? It's a bit off a hack, but might be useful in this particular instance. Especially since we'd avoid maintaining separate documentation of the lfuns, and anything that makes it easier for the developers to document changes to the lfun ought to be a good thing... /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Minor change to wiki
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, G. Milde wrote: Nice. (The pre-set LyX/ was a minor annoyance, too small to complain but I like it more this way.) If there are other minor annoyances, please let me know... it was just a coincidence that a friend told me about this one! If you wish to restrict the search to a specific group, just write 'group/' in the search form. For a list of groups related to LyX users, see http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/GroupList We need this info somewhere in the Wiki. On a prominent place but not in the way for users just browsing for the real info. It's actually right there on the page with search results... http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/SearchWiki Feel free to improve the text on that page... just click 'edit' as usual :-) How difficult would it be to change the SearchWiki link in front of the Search text entry box into a drop-down list of the several Groups to search? [SearchWiki \/] SearchWiki Search LyX/ Search Tips/ ... Search Layouts/ Search Examples/ It's probably doable, but I'm not qute sure how. See my text about the search page... would it be enough to improve the description there? /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Minor change to wiki
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, G. Milde wrote: > Nice. (The pre-set LyX/ was a minor annoyance, too small to complain but I > like it more this way.) If there are other minor annoyances, please let me know... it was just a coincidence that a friend told me about this one! > > If you wish to restrict the search to a specific group, just write > > '/' in the search form. For a list of groups related to LyX > > users, see http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/GroupList > > We need this info somewhere in the Wiki. On a prominent place but not > in the way for users just browsing for the "real" info. It's actually right there on the page with search results... http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/SearchWiki Feel free to improve the text on that page... just click 'edit' as usual :-) > How difficult would it be to change the SearchWiki link in front of the > Search text entry box into a drop-down list of the several Groups to > search? > >[SearchWiki \/] > SearchWiki > Search LyX/ > Search Tips/ > ... > Search Layouts/ > Search Examples/ It's probably doable, but I'm not qute sure how. See my text about the search page... would it be enough to improve the description there? /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Immediate plans for the wiki
Hi I just wanted to give a heads up on what I'm planning for the wiki on a short term: * Migrate from pmwiki-1 to pmwiki-2 * Structure the LyX documentation on the wiki (see LyX/Documentation) * Possibly change how the wiki is organized (if people can come up with good suggestions on how it could be better organized) So if there is some disturbances on the wiki this is probably because I'm doing a major update of the wiki engine. I might also disable editing of the wiki for a day during this transition. /Christian PS. I tried updating the wiki a month ago but discovered that pmwiki-2 wasn't ready enough, but I'm hoping that's not the case anymore. -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
In the process of migrating to pmwiki2
I'm currently testing the installation here http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki2/pmwiki.php/Site/Site I'd be grateful if people look at it and report problems (bound to be quite a few still, uploads don't work at the moment for one). In theory, all pages from the old site should be accessible/working this way. Please note that any pages you edit on that test site are likely to be lost during the final migration. Also note that the major difference between pmwiki-1 and pmwiki-2 is that most link markup is embedded using [[..]], whereas directives are done using (:..:). To give some examples, these are now links [[Group/SomePage]] [[Group/SomePage | link text]] [[link text - Group/SomePage]] and this is an example of a directive (:include Group/SomePage:) The reason for the change in markup was to make it easier and more consistent (among other reasons). /Christian PS. Is there anoyone on this list who's good with CSS and have ideas on how the site should look, now's a good time to fiddle with that kind of stuff... -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Immediate plans for the wiki
Hi I just wanted to give a heads up on what I'm planning for the wiki on a short term: * Migrate from pmwiki-1 to pmwiki-2 * Structure the LyX documentation on the wiki (see LyX/Documentation) * Possibly change how the wiki is organized (if people can come up with good suggestions on how it could be better organized) So if there is some disturbances on the wiki this is probably because I'm doing a major update of the wiki engine. I might also disable editing of the wiki for a day during this transition. /Christian PS. I tried updating the wiki a month ago but discovered that pmwiki-2 wasn't ready enough, but I'm hoping that's not the case anymore. -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
In the process of migrating to pmwiki2
I'm currently testing the installation here http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki2/pmwiki.php/Site/Site I'd be grateful if people look at it and report problems (bound to be quite a few still, uploads don't work at the moment for one). In theory, all pages from the old site should be accessible/working this way. Please note that any pages you edit on that test site are likely to be lost during the final migration. Also note that the major difference between pmwiki-1 and pmwiki-2 is that most link markup is embedded using [[..]], whereas directives are done using (:..:). To give some examples, these are now links [[Group/SomePage]] [[Group/SomePage | link text]] [[link text -> Group/SomePage]] and this is an example of a directive (:include Group/SomePage:) The reason for the change in markup was to make it easier and more consistent (among other reasons). /Christian PS. Is there anoyone on this list who's good with CSS and have ideas on how the site should look, now's a good time to fiddle with that kind of stuff... -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote: Either way, I think it's safe to fold the existing FAQ.lyx into the Wiki and ditch the FAQ.lyx file. PS. John, regarding what documents to maintain in what format I'd really appreciate your thoughs. (I'm not even clear on exactly what documents we do have... guess I should read what you added to the wiki:-) -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote: On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 03:22:59PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Am I wrong? Not at all. FAQ.lyx was originally dead-on-arrival. Mike Ressler added a real FAQ sometime in 2000. So FAQ.lyx is now way out of date. Either way, I think it's safe to fold the existing FAQ.lyx into the Wiki and ditch the FAQ.lyx file. *sigh* this should teach me not to leave the list unread for too long. I've forgotten what this thread was really about. What's the consensus right now. Should we maintain the FAQ as wiki pages? If so, I'll add that to http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/Documents In case I didn't mention it already, this is where I plan to list the documents and also their main place of being maintained. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Documentation source (was: LyX, wiki and documentation)
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote: On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 03:50:51PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: * How would users like to read the FAQ? ** Users want to read/browse the FAQ as web (wiki) pages. This requires an internet connection unless we package a local copy of the web (wiki) pages with the LyX documentation. ** Users want to read their FAQ.lyx that comes installed with LyX Honestly, I don't think we really need to have the FAQ be a LyX document anymore. HTML pages, possibly generated from the Wiki, should be sufficient. (It's not like web browsers are all that rare anymore.) I agree, what was your opinion Jean-Marc? As for where to keep the source of various documents, here is the current situation AFAIK: Document Source is kept in x as yComment Introduction LyX inst, Intro.lyx Tutorial LyX inst, Tutorial.lyx User guideLyX inst, UserGuide.lyx Serves as user example Custom. LyX inst, Customize.lyx Extended fea. LyX inst, Extended.lyx FAQ Wiki = HTML with LyX inst Reference doc LyX inst, Reference.lyx As per John's thinking, I've listed an alternative suggestion of where/how to keep the source of the documentation. Document Source is kept in x as yComment Introduction LyX inst, Intro.lyx [1][2][3] Tutorial LyX inst, Tutorial.lyx [1][2][3] User guideLyX inst, UserGuide.lyx [1][2][3] Custom. Wiki = HTML incl w LyX [4] Reference Wiki = HTML incl w LyX [4] FAQ Wiki = HTML incl w LyX [4] Extended fea. LyX inst, Extended.lyx DocStyle LyX inst, DocStyle.lyx [1] [1] - Under tight editorial control. [2] - The (LyX) document also servers as an example of 'how-to-do-that' using LyX [3] - There are wiki pages for submitting minor corrections/addendums [4] - Primarily maintained by LyX community, need some editors though Does this sound good/bad? What documentation have I forgotten here? I should probably mention a few things regarding the wiki: * We can protect pages/groups using passwords if needed * We can (easily) design our own wiki markup for special needs /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Documentation source
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: chr == chr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Honestly, I don't think we really need to have the FAQ be a LyX document anymore. HTML pages, possibly generated from the Wiki, should be sufficient. (It's not like web browsers are all that rare anymore.) chr I agree, what was your opinion Jean-Marc? I am not very fond of distributing HTML pages as documentation in LyX. I'd agree to drop the FAQ from LyX now and replace it with a version converted from the wiki when we know how to do that. Ok (I'm starting to remember now). Would you say the same holds for all the documenation (except that we should keep them as .lyx-files for now). We have to eat our dog food in some way. If LyX is not suitable to read documents on screen we have a problem. It's been a while since I actually used LyX to be honest, but I have a vague memory of it not being that fun to read stuff in LyX. Cant' remember why though.. one issue had to do with horizontal scrolling and long formulas I think. Did you try to send a request on lyx-devel about writing a pmwiki-lyx converter? I suspect that Jose' would be interested to show off his python skills :) No, but I should remember to do that. However, I just rememberd that I'm planning to convert the wiki from PmWiki-1 to PmWiki-2. This will mean a substantial change (read improvement) on the wiki markup, so there's not that much point in writing the converter before that. I actually started on the conversion process but found some annoying problems with PmWiki-2 (it's still in beta) so I stopped. /C -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote: > Either way, I think it's safe to fold the existing FAQ.lyx into the > Wiki and ditch the FAQ.lyx file. PS. John, regarding what documents to maintain in what format I'd really appreciate your thoughs. (I'm not even clear on exactly what documents we do have... guess I should read what you added to the wiki:-) -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 03:22:59PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > Am I wrong? > > Not at all. FAQ.lyx was originally dead-on-arrival. Mike Ressler > added a "real" FAQ sometime in 2000. So FAQ.lyx is now way out of > date. > > Either way, I think it's safe to fold the existing FAQ.lyx into the > Wiki and ditch the FAQ.lyx file. *sigh* this should teach me not to leave the list unread for too long. I've forgotten what this thread was really about. What's the consensus right now. Should we maintain the FAQ as wiki pages? If so, I'll add that to http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/Documents In case I didn't mention it already, this is where I plan to list the documents and also their main place of being maintained. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Documentation source (was: LyX, wiki and documentation)
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 03:50:51PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > * How would users like to read the FAQ? > > ** Users want to read/browse the FAQ as web (wiki) pages. > >This requires an internet connection unless we package a local copy of > >the web (wiki) pages with the LyX documentation. > > ** Users want to read their FAQ.lyx that comes installed with LyX > > Honestly, I don't think we really need to have the FAQ be a LyX > document anymore. HTML pages, possibly generated from the Wiki, > should be sufficient. (It's not like web browsers are all that rare > anymore.) I agree, what was your opinion Jean-Marc? As for where to keep the "source" of various documents, here is the current situation AFAIK: Document Source is kept in as Comment Introduction LyX inst, Intro.lyx Tutorial LyX inst, Tutorial.lyx User guideLyX inst, UserGuide.lyx Serves as user example Custom. LyX inst, Customize.lyx Extended fea. LyX inst, Extended.lyx FAQ Wiki => HTML with LyX inst Reference doc LyX inst, Reference.lyx As per John's thinking, I've listed an alternative suggestion of where/how to keep the source of the documentation. Document Source is kept in as Comment Introduction LyX inst, Intro.lyx [1][2][3] Tutorial LyX inst, Tutorial.lyx [1][2][3] User guideLyX inst, UserGuide.lyx [1][2][3] Custom. Wiki => HTML incl w LyX [4] Reference Wiki => HTML incl w LyX [4] FAQ Wiki => HTML incl w LyX [4] Extended fea. LyX inst, Extended.lyx DocStyle LyX inst, DocStyle.lyx [1] [1] - Under tight editorial control. [2] - The (LyX) document also servers as an example of 'how-to-do-that' using LyX [3] - There are wiki pages for submitting minor corrections/addendums [4] - Primarily maintained by LyX community, need some editors though Does this sound good/bad? What documentation have I forgotten here? I should probably mention a few things regarding the wiki: * We can protect pages/groups using passwords if needed * We can (easily) design our own wiki markup for special needs /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Documentation source
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>>> "chr" == chr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Honestly, I don't think we really need to have the FAQ be a LyX > >> document anymore. HTML pages, possibly generated from the Wiki, > >> should be sufficient. (It's not like web browsers are all that rare > >> anymore.) > > chr> I agree, what was your opinion Jean-Marc? > > I am not very fond of distributing HTML pages as documentation in LyX. > I'd agree to drop the FAQ from LyX now and replace it with a version > converted from the wiki when we know how to do that. Ok (I'm starting to remember now). Would you say the same holds for all the documenation (except that we should keep them as .lyx-files for now). > We have to eat our dog food in some way. If LyX is not suitable to > read documents on screen we have a problem. It's been a while since I actually used LyX to be honest, but I have a vague memory of it not being that fun to read stuff in LyX. Cant' remember why though.. one issue had to do with horizontal scrolling and long formulas I think. > Did you try to send a request on lyx-devel about writing a pmwiki->lyx > converter? I suspect that Jose' would be interested to show off his > python skills :) No, but I should remember to do that. However, I just rememberd that I'm planning to convert the wiki from PmWiki-1 to PmWiki-2. This will mean a substantial change (read improvement) on the wiki markup, so there's not that much point in writing the converter before that. I actually started on the conversion process but found some annoying problems with PmWiki-2 (it's still in beta) so I stopped. /C -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: The Official LyXDocProject StyleSheet
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote: On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:19:55PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm... I think we're better of with the text as PDF anyway to be honest. As it is, we'll still have to watch out for having multiple versions of the text lying around etc. That, actually, is my preference. I just wasn't sure if it was yours, as well. Sounds like that's decided then. We'll keep the master of the DocStyle document as a .lyx-file (in CVS) and publish it as .lyx and .pdf. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Adding PDF-versions of user documents to the repository?
What do you think of the idea of adding PDF-versions of some of the documentation to the repository? The main reason I ask is actually that I'd like to be able to refer to the latest UserGuide as a PDF-file from a wiki page. E.g. here. http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/Documents Right now I can refer to the latest UserGuide.lyx-file using simply: LyxDoc:UserGuide.lyx?rev=HEAD but it'd be very nice if I could do the same for a PDF-version. Note that I'm not necessarily requesting that we have the PDF-versions added to RPM's etc. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: The Official LyXDocProject StyleSheet
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 06:19:55PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Hmm... I think we're better of with the text as PDF anyway to be honest. > > As it is, we'll still have to watch out for having multiple versions of > > the text lying around etc. > > That, actually, is my preference. I just wasn't sure if it was yours, > as well. Sounds like that's decided then. We'll keep the "master" of the DocStyle document as a .lyx-file (in CVS) and publish it as .lyx and .pdf. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Adding PDF-versions of user documents to the repository?
What do you think of the idea of adding PDF-versions of some of the documentation to the repository? The main reason I ask is actually that I'd like to be able to refer to the latest UserGuide as a PDF-file from a wiki page. E.g. here. http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/Documents Right now I can refer to the latest UserGuide.lyx-file using simply: LyxDoc:UserGuide.lyx?rev=HEAD but it'd be very nice if I could do the same for a PDF-version. Note that I'm not necessarily requesting that we have the PDF-versions added to RPM's etc. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote: On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:47:42AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi I'd like to ask for some ideas/thoughts on the wiki from a documentation perspective. Or rather, I'd like some general thougths on what kind of documentation we would like for LyX, considering that we can have the documentation in several places these days. : : However, I hope we should be able to use the collaborative aspect of the wiki to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation. For instance by supplying examples of how LyX can be used. Or by adding FAQ etc. Hmm... interestingly, when discussion of making an FAQ *originally* occurred (like, back in 1996 or so), I suggested that the FAQ become an initial launchpad for new sections of the docs. The FAQ could then say, See the XYZ-Sections-Title/ of the SomeLyXManual/ manual. Or, at least, that was the idea... Eh.. I don't get initial launchpad for new sections of the docs. Could you expand on what you mean. Btw, it should be possible to make the references become actual links using something called wiki 'inter-links'. They are just a shortcut for a URI, so if the manuals were availble via a URI, we'd be able to use wiki markup like UserGuide:Introduction to create a link to the introduction section of the user guide. It never took off, mainly because an FAQ never really went anywhere, mainly due to the static nature of web pages at that time and work involved in creating them. With the change in landscape in the intervening 7+ years, maybe it's time to resurrect that old plan... The FAQs are almost static today, not much stuff is added to them on the wiki pages. I think they need some work, primarily restructuring (I've been adding lots of entries to a page I simply call 'FAQ.Unsorted'). However, using the wiki it should be possible to make it much easier for normal users to add entries. But I think we'd need to define some kind of process for this... to me it seems users are kind of intimidated by being able to add stuff. It's like they think... dare I really add something here..., what if I make a mistake..., where should I put it... In addition, it's often difficult to know where to add stuff. For that reason I think it's a good idea to have some kind of input system, i.e. a place where new FAQs are added and the user know that someone will put them in the propere place, as well as look at them. Anyway, it'd probably be good to come up with at least something like guidelines for how the process should work. I suspect that'd things less scary for users, and also improve the quality. There's also lots of room for automating stuff if we want to. For instance, we can to setup an e-mail interface to the wiki. Basically a user can send an e-mail to the doc-list with a subject of Add to wiki and have this automatically added to some temporary page. (That page needs to be edited by a human later on of course). P.S.: You'll find that I've added several new sections to the Wiki, as I mention in another post. It would be nice if someone could take my original DocStyle.lyx style sheet and wikify it... Eh.. new sections... do you mean new pages or a new group? Which pages? I could probably wikify DocStyle.lyx very easy, which version did you use when you created the PDF? Was it the one that's in CVS HEAD? However, if we wikify DocStyle.lyx we need be clear on where we want to maintain the original. Should we make changes to the wiki pages or to DocStyle.lyx? (This is similar to the discussion I had about generating FAQ.lyx from wiki pages) /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote: > On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 01:47:42AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hi > > > > I'd like to ask for some ideas/thoughts on the wiki from a documentation > > perspective. Or rather, I'd like some general thougths on what kind of > > documentation we would like for LyX, considering that we can have the > > documentation in several places these days. > : > : > > However, I hope we should be able to use the collaborative aspect of the > > wiki to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation. For > > instance by supplying examples of how LyX can be used. Or by adding FAQ > > etc. > > Hmm... interestingly, when discussion of making an FAQ *originally* > occurred (like, back in 1996 or so), I suggested that the FAQ become > an initial launchpad for new sections of the docs. The FAQ could then > say, "See the of the manual." > Or, at least, that was the idea... Eh.. I don't get "initial launchpad for new sections of the docs." Could you expand on what you mean. Btw, it should be possible to make the references become actual links using something called wiki 'inter-links'. They are just a shortcut for a URI, so if the manuals were availble via a URI, we'd be able to use wiki markup like "UserGuide:Introduction" to create a link to the introduction section of the user guide. > It never took off, mainly because an FAQ never really went anywhere, > mainly due to the static nature of web pages at that time and work > involved in creating them. With the change in landscape in the > intervening 7+ years, maybe it's time to resurrect that old plan... The FAQs are almost static today, not much stuff is added to them on the wiki pages. I think they need some work, primarily restructuring (I've been adding lots of entries to a page I simply call 'FAQ.Unsorted'). However, using the wiki it should be possible to make it much easier for normal users to add entries. But I think we'd need to define some kind of process for this... to me it seems users are kind of intimidated by being able to add stuff. It's like they think... "dare I really add something here...", "what if I make a mistake...", "where should I put it..." In addition, it's often difficult to know where to add stuff. For that reason I think it's a good idea to have some kind of "input" system, i.e. a place where new FAQs are added and the user know that someone will put them in the propere place, as well as look at them. Anyway, it'd probably be good to come up with at least something like guidelines for how the process should work. I suspect that'd things less scary for users, and also improve the quality. There's also lots of room for automating stuff if we want to. For instance, we can to setup an e-mail interface to the wiki. Basically a user can send an e-mail to the doc-list with a subject of "Add to wiki" and have this automatically added to some temporary page. (That page needs to be edited by a human later on of course). > P.S.: You'll find that I've added several new sections to the Wiki, > as I mention in another post. It would be nice if someone could take > my original DocStyle.lyx style sheet and wikify it... Eh.. "new sections"... do you mean new pages or a new group? Which pages? I could probably wikify DocStyle.lyx very easy, which version did you use when you created the PDF? Was it the one that's in CVS HEAD? However, if we wikify DocStyle.lyx we need be clear on where we want to maintain the "original". Should we make changes to the wiki pages or to DocStyle.lyx? (This is similar to the discussion I had about generating FAQ.lyx from wiki pages) /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: chr == chr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: chr Hi I'd like to ask for some ideas/thoughts on the wiki from a chr documentation perspective. Or rather, I'd like some general chr thougths on what kind of documentation we would like for LyX, chr considering that we can have the documentation in several places chr these days. chr Here are some loose ideas of types of documentation: chr * Documentation that comes with a LyX installation chr ** UserGuide.lyx etc, to be read from inside LyX chr ** UserGuide.lyx etc as a PDF-version (to easily allow printing) Do you think that a PDF version would really help in this respect? I have no idea really... guess I just thought about it because I'm so used to being able to download PDF-versions of various documents. (Ideally I'd like a discussion on a general documentation strategy, i.e. what information should be kept where (possibly duplicated), and in what form.) I can see that it helps people who would like to print the docs without installing latex... Another benefit might possibly be that it gives you a pair (lyx- and pdf-file) that match, that allows you to check that your system properly generates the pdf-version of the userguide. Maybe this could be useful for people who wonder if their system is working properly? chr * Documentation that can be read online chr ** Is there a point to having an online version of the UserGuide, chror perhaps to have tutorials online? chr ** Wiki pages? Web pages What would be nice in general would be to generate the docs from (a part of) the wiki, but the formatting possibilities of the wiki are too poor to allow that. However, it would be nice to have automatically pdf and maybe html versions of the docs on the web site. We will eventually have the possibility to generate a PDF [1] from a set of wiki pages, but I (as you) seriously doubt we even should try to use that as our way of creating the main documentation. But perhaps the wiki could be useful for certain documentation (eg where formatting is secondary). For that matter, I'd think it be more useful to ship a copy of some of the wiki pages as local documentation (if they are useful), instead of putting them all together as a big PDF-file. chr * Collaborative documentation (eg. the wiki) chr * The FAQ - how does it fit in (it's currently on the wiki) I think the FAQ should be removed from the docs, or maybe (since it is less complicated in terms of formatting than, say, the UserGuide) we could generate it from a part of the wiki. Is it possible to export a wiki tree to latex? [1] A guy (John Rankin) is working on being able to generate a PDF-document from a set of wiki pages. He actually has this working, but I haven't installed it yet. That'll wait until after I eventually update the wiki to PmWiki 2 (we're using PmWiki 1 now). I think John plans to eventually use latex in the process of generating a PDF file. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: chr == chr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: chr [1] A guy (John Rankin) is working on being able to generate a chr PDF-document from a set of wiki pages. He actually has this chr working, but I haven't installed it yet. That'll wait until after chr I eventually update the wiki to PmWiki 2 (we're using PmWiki 1 chr now). chr I think John plans to eventually use latex in the process of chr generating a PDF file. Very good. So hopefully we could get a lyx file from this tex file (assuming it is of reasonable quality). For that matter, we could probably generate the lyx file directly... it's not like the wiki source format is very complicated... (in addition, PmWiki is very flexible so we could easily define our own markup with a one-to-one correspondence with whatever is needed in the lyx-file). Eh... I've lost track of the purpose here though... why do we want to generate a lyx-file from wiki pages? /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: chr == chr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: chr Eh... I've lost track of the purpose here though... why do we chr want to generate a lyx-file from wiki pages? I thought it could be useful to replace the FAQ. If we could identify a section of the wiki that can be used as a FAQ, we could generate FAQ.lyx from there. I though this is something the Wiki is good at (and also FAQs tend to need only simple formatting). Am I wrong? No, I think wiki pages are good for maintaining FAQs (although they really needs an editor or two). What I wonder what the purpose would be for converted the wiki FAQ to FAQ.lyx? Or phrased differently, what do the we (or the users) gain by having the FAQ in FAQ.lyx? (In the case of the userguide, I see a big advantage in that the user can look in UserGuide.lyx to see exactly how something is done, i.e. the document is an example as well as an explanation). The problem is how we want to maintain the FAQ information, or perhaps rather how the information flows from one form to another. I think we need to decide in what form(s) we want to maintain the FAQ, and how/if we should maintain it. Today we have the following situation: * FAQ.lyx has not been maintained in a while * The wiki FAQ is more up to date and has had lots of material added, but it needs to be structured. I think your question is if we could maintain a FAQ through a set of wiki pages and use these to generate FAQ.lyx. The answer to that is yes, and it probably wouldn't even be that difficult to automate. However, it'd be more complicated if we wanted to be able to edit FAQ.lyx and automatically transfer those changes back to the wiki. Even though it'd be relatively easy to generate FAQ.lyx automatically, I do wonder what the purpose would be if we don't expect to edit it... Anyway, I'm starting to repeat myself. Here are some more general questions I can wonder about related to the FAQ: * How would users like to read the FAQ? ** Users want to read/browse the FAQ as web (wiki) pages. This requires an internet connection unless we package a local copy of the web (wiki) pages with the LyX documentation. ** Users want to read their FAQ.lyx that comes installed with LyX * How would users like to search for information in the FAQ? ** Using google or a search function on the wiki ** Using 'ctrl-f' in LyX and the file FAQ.lyx * How would editors/users like to contribute to the FAQ? ** Users/editors contribute to the FAQ by editing wiki pages ** Editors work on FAQ.lyx and send it to lyx-devel for CVS comit /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: chr == chr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: chr I think your question is if we could maintain a FAQ through a set chr of wiki pages and use these to generate FAQ.lyx. The answer to chr that is yes, and it probably wouldn't even be that difficult to chr automate. Yes, this is what I have in mind. Ok. chr However, it'd be more complicated if we wanted to be able to edit chr FAQ.lyx and automatically transfer those changes back to the chr wiki. This is not needed IMO. The idea is to distribute with LyX some up-to-date information without requiring an internet connection. Ok. See below. chr Even though it'd be relatively easy to generate FAQ.lyx chr automatically, I do wonder what the purpose would be if we don't chr expect to edit it... Just to allow people to read it from within LyX without using the web. Just to be clear, does 'read it from within LyX' mean that the text should be seen in the LyX text window? I can think of several alternatives (the first one is what happens today): * Help-FAQ opens local copy of FAQ.lyx inside LyX * Help-FAQ (PDF) opens a PDF reader showing FAQ.pdf * Help-FAQ (local) opens a browser pointing to a local/static copy of the wiki pages (with links to the online version). * Help-FAQ (online) opens a browser pointing to online FAQ I can see both advantages and disadvantages with the alternatives, and in theory we could use them all at once. But using them all might be overkill and a waste of time. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
About the FAQ
Hi If we reach some clever conclusions about the FAQ, I've made a page a on the wiki to put them: http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/AboutTheFAQ /Christian PS. It's very convenient to refer to posts from the wiki using e.g. LyxDocPost:603 (should go to this post) To link to a thread-view, use LyxDocThreadRoot:603 - all these kinds of links (called inter-links) are documented here: http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/Site/InterLinks We have them for all lists AFAIK. -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: chr == chr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: chr Just to be clear, does 'read it from within LyX' mean that the chr text should be seen in the LyX text window? I can think of chr several alternatives (the first one is what happens today): * chr Help-FAQ opens local copy of FAQ.lyx inside LyX This is what I had in mind, just to complement the existing docs. Guess I wasn't clear... What do you see as the drawback with the user being being directed to local webpages or a PDF? (I ask because generating a local/static copy of the wikipages should be doable today, whereas generating FAQ.lyx is in the future.) /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: chr == chr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: chr Guess I wasn't clear... What do you see as the drawback with the chr user being being directed to local webpages or a PDF? Well, all our docs are currently in LyX format, I do not like much the idea of having the FAQ in its own special format. chr (I ask because generating a local/static copy of the wikipages chr should be doable today, whereas generating FAQ.lyx is in the chr future.) I guess we are not in a hurry. I was just discussing an idea I had :) No worries, I've noted the above here: http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/AboutTheFAQ As for importing the information... would it be better to import the text using some other format than latex? I was thinking of DocBook or HTML, but maybe there are other formats that are more suitable? I'm pretty sure there will someday be a method to export pmwiki pages as some other format, but I'm not sure what that'll be. There are people on the pmwiki-list that like doing this kind of thing and might welcome ideas for what a suitable format should be. Speaking of ideas... I have a very loose and long term idea of being able to edit the wiki pages from within LyX :-) (Right now I edit them from within Emacs using a mode I wrote/adapted for that purpose) /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>>> "chr" == chr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > chr> Hi I'd like to ask for some ideas/thoughts on the wiki from a > chr> documentation perspective. Or rather, I'd like some general > chr> thougths on what kind of documentation we would like for LyX, > chr> considering that we can have the documentation in several places > chr> these days. > > chr> Here are some loose ideas of types of documentation: > > chr> * Documentation that comes with a LyX installation > chr> ** UserGuide.lyx etc, to be read from inside LyX > chr> ** UserGuide.lyx etc as a PDF-version (to easily allow printing) > > Do you think that a PDF version would really help in this respect? I have no idea really... guess I just thought about it because I'm so used to being able to download PDF-versions of various documents. (Ideally I'd like a discussion on a general documentation strategy, i.e. what information should be kept where (possibly duplicated), and in what form.) > I can see that it helps people who would like to print the docs without > installing latex... Another benefit might possibly be that it gives you a "pair" (lyx- and pdf-file) that match, that allows you to check that your system properly generates the pdf-version of the userguide. Maybe this could be useful for people who wonder if their system is working properly? > chr> * Documentation that can be read online > chr> ** Is there a point to having an online version of the UserGuide, > chr>or perhaps to have tutorials online? > chr> ** Wiki pages? Web pages > > What would be nice in general would be to generate the docs from (a > part of) the wiki, but the formatting possibilities of the wiki are > too poor to allow that. However, it would be nice to have > automatically pdf and maybe html versions of the docs on the web site. We will eventually have the possibility to generate a PDF [1] from a set of wiki pages, but I (as you) seriously doubt we even should try to use that as our way of creating the main documentation. But perhaps the wiki could be useful for certain documentation (eg where formatting is secondary). For that matter, I'd think it be more useful to ship a copy of some of the wiki pages as local documentation (if they are useful), instead of putting them all together as a big PDF-file. > chr> * Collaborative documentation (eg. the wiki) > > chr> * The FAQ - how does it fit in (it's currently on the wiki) > > I think the FAQ should be removed from the docs, or maybe (since it is > less complicated in terms of formatting than, say, the UserGuide) we > could generate it from a part of the wiki. Is it possible to export a > wiki tree to latex? [1] A guy (John Rankin) is working on being able to generate a PDF-document from a set of wiki pages. He actually has this working, but I haven't installed it yet. That'll wait until after I eventually update the wiki to PmWiki 2 (we're using PmWiki 1 now). I think John plans to eventually use latex in the process of generating a PDF file. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>>> "chr" == chr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > chr> [1] A guy (John Rankin) is working on being able to generate a > chr> PDF-document from a set of wiki pages. He actually has this > chr> working, but I haven't installed it yet. That'll wait until after > chr> I eventually update the wiki to PmWiki 2 (we're using PmWiki 1 > chr> now). > > chr> I think John plans to eventually use latex in the process of > chr> generating a PDF file. > > Very good. So hopefully we could get a lyx file from this tex file > (assuming it is of reasonable quality). For that matter, we could probably generate the lyx file directly... it's not like the wiki source format is very complicated... (in addition, PmWiki is very flexible so we could easily define our own markup with a one-to-one correspondence with whatever is needed in the lyx-file). Eh... I've lost track of the purpose here though... why do we want to generate a lyx-file from wiki pages? /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>>> "chr" == chr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > chr> Eh... I've lost track of the purpose here though... why do we > chr> want to generate a lyx-file from wiki pages? > > I thought it could be useful to replace the FAQ. If we could identify > a section of the wiki that can be used as a FAQ, we could generate > FAQ.lyx from there. I though this is something the Wiki is good at > (and also FAQs tend to need only simple formatting). > > Am I wrong? No, I think wiki pages are good for maintaining FAQs (although they really needs an editor or two). What I wonder what the purpose would be for converted the wiki FAQ to FAQ.lyx? Or phrased differently, what do the we (or the users) gain by having the FAQ in FAQ.lyx? (In the case of the userguide, I see a big advantage in that the user can look in UserGuide.lyx to see exactly how something is done, i.e. the document is an example as well as an explanation). The problem is how we want to maintain the FAQ information, or perhaps rather how the information flows from one form to another. I think we need to decide in what form(s) we want to maintain the FAQ, and how/if we should maintain it. Today we have the following situation: * FAQ.lyx has not been maintained in a while * The wiki FAQ is more up to date and has had lots of material added, but it needs to be structured. I think your question is if we could maintain a FAQ through a set of wiki pages and use these to generate FAQ.lyx. The answer to that is yes, and it probably wouldn't even be that difficult to automate. However, it'd be more complicated if we wanted to be able to edit FAQ.lyx and automatically transfer those changes back to the wiki. Even though it'd be relatively easy to generate FAQ.lyx automatically, I do wonder what the purpose would be if we don't expect to edit it... Anyway, I'm starting to repeat myself. Here are some more general questions I can wonder about related to the FAQ: * How would users like to read the FAQ? ** Users want to read/browse the FAQ as web (wiki) pages. This requires an internet connection unless we package a local copy of the web (wiki) pages with the LyX documentation. ** Users want to read their FAQ.lyx that comes installed with LyX * How would users like to search for information in the FAQ? ** Using google or a search function on the wiki ** Using 'ctrl-f' in LyX and the file FAQ.lyx * How would editors/users like to contribute to the FAQ? ** Users/editors contribute to the FAQ by editing wiki pages ** Editors work on FAQ.lyx and send it to lyx-devel for CVS comit /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>>> "chr" == chr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > chr> I think your question is if we could maintain a FAQ through a set > chr> of wiki pages and use these to generate FAQ.lyx. The answer to > chr> that is yes, and it probably wouldn't even be that difficult to > chr> automate. > > Yes, this is what I have in mind. Ok. > chr> However, it'd be more complicated if we wanted to be able to edit > chr> FAQ.lyx and automatically transfer those changes back to the > chr> wiki. > > This is not needed IMO. The idea is to distribute with LyX some > up-to-date information without requiring an internet connection. Ok. See below. > chr> Even though it'd be relatively easy to generate FAQ.lyx > chr> automatically, I do wonder what the purpose would be if we don't > chr> expect to edit it... > > Just to allow people to read it from within LyX without using the web. Just to be clear, does 'read it from within LyX' mean that the text should be seen in the LyX text window? I can think of several alternatives (the first one is what happens today): * "Help->FAQ" opens local copy of FAQ.lyx inside LyX * "Help->FAQ (PDF)" opens a PDF reader showing FAQ.pdf * "Help->FAQ (local)" opens a browser pointing to a local/static copy of the wiki pages (with links to the online version). * "Help->FAQ (online)" opens a browser pointing to online FAQ I can see both advantages and disadvantages with the alternatives, and in theory we could use them all at once. But using them all might be overkill and a waste of time. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
About the FAQ
Hi If we reach some clever conclusions about the FAQ, I've made a page a on the wiki to put them: http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/AboutTheFAQ /Christian PS. It's very convenient to refer to posts from the wiki using e.g. LyxDocPost:603 (should go to this post) To link to a thread-view, use LyxDocThreadRoot:603 - all these kinds of links (called inter-links) are documented here: http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/Site/InterLinks We have them for all lists AFAIK. -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>>> "chr" == chr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > chr> Just to be clear, does 'read it from within LyX' mean that the > chr> text should be seen in the LyX text window? I can think of > chr> several alternatives (the first one is what happens today): * > chr> "Help->FAQ" opens local copy of FAQ.lyx inside LyX > > This is what I had in mind, just to complement the existing docs. Guess I wasn't clear... What do you see as the drawback with the user being being directed to local webpages or a PDF? (I ask because generating a local/static copy of the wikipages should be doable today, whereas generating FAQ.lyx is in the future.) /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: LyX, wiki and documentation
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>>> "chr" == chr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > chr> Guess I wasn't clear... What do you see as the drawback with the > chr> user being being directed to local webpages or a PDF? > > Well, all our docs are currently in LyX format, I do not like much the > idea of having the FAQ in its own special format. > > chr> (I ask because generating a local/static copy of the wikipages > chr> should be doable today, whereas generating FAQ.lyx is in the > chr> future.) > > I guess we are not in a hurry. I was just discussing an idea I had :) No worries, I've noted the above here: http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/AboutTheFAQ As for importing the information... would it be better to import the text using some other format than latex? I was thinking of DocBook or HTML, but maybe there are other formats that are more suitable? I'm pretty sure there will someday be a method to export pmwiki pages as some other format, but I'm not sure what that'll be. There are people on the pmwiki-list that like doing this kind of thing and might welcome ideas for what a suitable format should be. Speaking of ideas... I have a very loose and long term idea of being able to edit the wiki pages from within LyX :-) (Right now I edit them from within Emacs using a mode I wrote/adapted for that purpose) /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: The Official LyXDocProject StyleSheet
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote: You'll find it in the attached PDF file. You'll also find it in LyX, as the file $LYXDIR/doc/DocStyle.lyx I've spent this evening adding snippest of this file to the LyX WikiWiki. Christian, please check that I've done this correctly. Also, if you wanna add the attached PDF file somehow, that'd be great! It looks very nice AFAICT, now we just need to let people know that information is available at pages like: * http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/DevelDoc * http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/DocumentFormat * http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/Contributing * http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/WhatGoesWhere * http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/TheLyXDocStyleSheet As for the PDF, I've uploaded it and added a link to it from this page http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/DevelDoc In addition, I added a link to the latest version of the LyX-file in the repository (HEAD). [I've also attached a bzipped *.tex file (yes, I realize you could generate this yourlselves) in the hope that someone will run it through a LaTeX--HTML converter (I've tried TtH, but it makes too many mistakes and I'm in a rush right now). Would be great to have this doc someplace on the official LyX site...] Hmm... I think we're better of with the text as PDF anyway to be honest. As it is, we'll still have to watch out for having multiple versions of the text lying around etc. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: The Official LyXDocProject StyleSheet
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote: > You'll find it in the attached PDF file. > > You'll also find it in LyX, as the file "$LYXDIR/doc/DocStyle.lyx" > > I've spent this evening adding snippest of this file to the LyX > WikiWiki. Christian, please check that I've done this correctly. > Also, if you wanna add the attached PDF file somehow, that'd be great! It looks very nice AFAICT, now we just need to let people know that information is available at pages like: * http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/DevelDoc * http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/DocumentFormat * http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/Contributing * http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/WhatGoesWhere * http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/TheLyXDocStyleSheet As for the PDF, I've uploaded it and added a link to it from this page http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/DevelDoc/DevelDoc In addition, I added a link to the latest version of the LyX-file in the repository (HEAD). > [I've also attached a bzipped *.tex file (yes, I realize you could > generate this yourlselves) in the hope that someone will run it > through a LaTeX-->HTML converter (I've tried TtH, but it makes too > many mistakes and I'm in a rush right now). Would be great to have > this doc someplace on the official LyX site...] Hmm... I think we're better of with the text as PDF anyway to be honest. As it is, we'll still have to watch out for having multiple versions of the text lying around etc. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
LyX, wiki and documentation
Hi I'd like to ask for some ideas/thoughts on the wiki from a documentation perspective. Or rather, I'd like some general thougths on what kind of documentation we would like for LyX, considering that we can have the documentation in several places these days. Here are some loose ideas of types of documentation: * Documentation that comes with a LyX installation ** UserGuide.lyx etc, to be read from inside LyX ** UserGuide.lyx etc as a PDF-version (to easily allow printing) * Documentation that can be read online ** Is there a point to having an online version of the UserGuide, or perhaps to have tutorials online? ** Wiki pages? Web pages * Collaborative documentation (eg. the wiki) * The FAQ - how does it fit in (it's currently on the wiki) It'd be nice if there was a strategy for all these kinds of documentation, I'm especially interested in how the wiki could fit in with the documentation. For the record, I do not belive the wiki could ever replace eg. the user guide. Nor that a documentation wiki that isn't controlled by editor(s) would work. However, I hope we should be able to use the collaborative aspect of the wiki to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation. For instance by supplying examples of how LyX can be used. Or by adding FAQ etc. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
LyX, wiki and documentation
Hi I'd like to ask for some ideas/thoughts on the wiki from a documentation perspective. Or rather, I'd like some general thougths on what kind of documentation we would like for LyX, considering that we can have the documentation in several places these days. Here are some loose ideas of types of documentation: * Documentation that comes with a LyX installation ** UserGuide.lyx etc, to be read from inside LyX ** UserGuide.lyx etc as a PDF-version (to easily allow printing) * Documentation that can be read online ** Is there a point to having an online version of the UserGuide, or perhaps to have tutorials online? ** Wiki pages? Web pages * Collaborative documentation (eg. the wiki) * The FAQ - how does it fit in (it's currently on the wiki) It'd be nice if there was a strategy for all these kinds of documentation, I'm especially interested in how the wiki could fit in with the documentation. For the record, I do not belive the wiki could ever replace eg. the user guide. Nor that a "documentation wiki" that isn't controlled by editor(s) would work. However, I hope we should be able to use the collaborative aspect of the wiki to make it easier for people to contribute to the documentation. For instance by supplying examples of how LyX can be used. Or by adding FAQ etc. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: [rework docs] include mathed documentation
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, [UTF-8] Uwe Stöhr wrote: I covers now nearly all math constructs. I want to replace the mathed section in the userguide by this documentation. In my opinion the tutorial has a very good introduction to mathed: It explains navigating in formulas, the math-panel and the most common used constructs (fractions etc.). So that we could go deeper in the userguide. Mathed supports so many constructs that aren't explained in the docs at the moment. Are there any objections against this plan? I doubt that... the only concern I can think of is that it might be too much/advanced? /Christian PS. Give a shout if you'd like help proofreading the english translation. I was going to offer help translating, but realized how stupid that'd be... -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: merging documents into User's Guide
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote: I put a copy of John's post here: http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/Devel/MiscNotes since they explain the idea behind how the documents are partitioned. Whatever you guys do, please don't expect it to end up back in the official docs. We actually had that discussion before. Actually I didn't quite understand this bit though.. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: [rework docs] include mathed documentation
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, [UTF-8] Uwe Stöhr wrote: > I covers now nearly all math constructs. I want to replace the mathed > section in the userguide by this documentation. > In my opinion the tutorial has a very good introduction to mathed: It > explains navigating in formulas, the math-panel and the most common used > constructs (fractions etc.). So that we could go deeper in the > userguide. Mathed supports so many constructs that aren't explained in > the docs at the moment. > > Are there any objections against this plan? I doubt that... the only concern I can think of is that it might be too much/advanced? /Christian PS. Give a shout if you'd like help proofreading the english translation. I was going to offer help translating, but realized how stupid that'd be... -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: merging documents into User's Guide
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, John Weiss wrote: I put a copy of John's post here: http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/Devel/MiscNotes since they explain the idea behind how the documents are partitioned. > Whatever you guys do, please don't expect it to end up back in the > official docs. We actually had that discussion before. Actually I didn't quite understand this bit though.. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: screenshots for User's Guide?
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: I assume you think it would be useful for certain sections? Maybe you could give some examples of where it would be useful? For example, see section 4.2 Margin Notes. It says: This box is LyX's representation Same with section 4.1. A small screenshot could show that box within context. Ok, I see. I only thought of screeenshots showing the entire lyx window, but in this case you were thinking more of a small figure/illustration. A slight drawback with screenshots is that the appearance might differe between the Qt and Xforms version, not sure if that's a real problem or not. Of course showing screenshots could be superfluous when viewing the document within lyx -- maybe some option to turn it off. Maybe.. I actually found section 4.2 a bit confusion (otoh, it's the day after new year's eve right now). So a small illustration might be useful here as well. By the way, the other thing I am doing is a keyword index. That sounds useful. You'll get much more response on the user's list or the devel list, although this is where I think the discussion should be. /Christian PS. During at least a discussion phase of screenshots, it could be useful to place them on the wiki rather than emailing back and forth. I'll discuss on lyx-docs@lists.lyx.org for now. /Christian PS. Just to be clear, I meant placing screenshots on the wiki, not the actual discussions. -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: some informations better for the userguide
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, malev wrote:
Could you be explicit in the 2.3.2, userguide (mode-switch). I don't
understand how to build some compose (I'am french, I'd borrowed (?)
with typing [tex] \oe{}, or [tex] \,, etc. If this king of thing can be
simplified with a compose key, it would be great !
I'm afraid I don't quite understand the question... are you using windows
perhaps? (In that case you don't have a 'compose' key AFAIK).
regards
Christian
--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: screenshots for User's Guide?
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: > > I assume you think it would be useful for certain sections? Maybe you > > could give some examples of where it would be useful? > > For example, see section 4.2 "Margin Notes". It says: "This box is LyX's > representation " Same with section 4.1. > > A small screenshot could show that "box" within context. Ok, I see. I only thought of screeenshots showing the entire lyx window, but in this case you were thinking more of a small figure/illustration. A slight drawback with screenshots is that the appearance might differe between the Qt and Xforms version, not sure if that's a real problem or not. > Of course showing screenshots could be superfluous when viewing the > document within lyx -- maybe some option to turn it off. Maybe.. I actually found section 4.2 a bit confusion (otoh, it's the day after new year's eve right now). So a small illustration might be useful here as well. > By the way, the other thing I am doing is a keyword index. That sounds useful. > > You'll get much more response on the user's list or the devel list, > > although this is where I think the discussion should be. > > > > /Christian > > > > PS. During at least a discussion phase of screenshots, it could be useful > > to place them on the wiki rather than emailing back and forth. > > I'll discuss on lyx-docs@lists.lyx.org for now. /Christian PS. Just to be clear, I meant placing screenshots on the wiki, not the actual discussions. -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: some informations better for the userguide
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004, malev wrote:
> Could you be explicit in the 2.3.2, userguide (mode-switch). I don't
> understand how to build some "compose" (I'am french, I'd borrowed (?)
> with typing [tex] \oe{}, or [tex] \,, etc. If this king of thing can be
> simplified with a "compose" key, it would be great !
I'm afraid I don't quite understand the question... are you using windows
perhaps? (In that case you don't have a 'compose' key AFAIK).
regards
Christian
--
Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: screenshots for User's Guide?
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: Has there been any discussion about adding screenshots (or images) to the LyX User's Guide or other Help documents? At least no discussion on this list as far back as I know. I assume you think it would be useful for certain sections? Maybe you could give some examples of where it would be useful? You'll get much more response on the user's list or the devel list, although this is where I think the discussion should be. /Christian PS. During at least a discussion phase of screenshots, it could be useful to place them on the wiki rather than emailing back and forth. -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: screenshots for User's Guide?
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Jeremy C. Reed wrote: > Has there been any discussion about adding screenshots (or images) to > the LyX User's Guide or other Help documents? At least no discussion on this list as far back as I know. I assume you think it would be useful for certain sections? Maybe you could give some examples of where it would be useful? You'll get much more response on the user's list or the devel list, although this is where I think the discussion should be. /Christian PS. During at least a discussion phase of screenshots, it could be useful to place them on the wiki rather than emailing back and forth. -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Math in LyX wiki
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, [UTF-8] Uwe Stöhr wrote: Hello LyXers, while editing some wiki pages, I found out that wikipedia can handle math via LaTeX-commands. LyX's wiki is based on pmwiki and I found out that pmwiki can handle math via MimeTeX. But MimeTeX-commands don't work on LyX's wiki. Why? Is it hard to implement? That plugin was actually started by me using a different approach, but there didn't seem to be any desire for it by the lyx developers so I never installed it there. I've added it now in a hackish way, see e.g. http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/Playground/WikiSandbox There are two caveats: * It's not the latest version of mimetex - I can upgrade this if you want me to, or need it. * The binary file, mimetex.cgi is located in my home directory - it doesn't work otherwise, guess som apache configuration needs to be changed to let me put a .cgi somewhere else. Search www.pmwiki.org for 'mimetex' and you'll find lots of examples. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Math in LyX wiki
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Uwe Stöhr wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are two caveats: * It's not the latest version of mimetex - I can upgrade this if you want me to, or need it. I don't need this at the moment, possibly in the next time. But MimeTeX would certenly useful for other Wiki writers, so that an upgrade wouldn't harm. I've installed the latest version of mimetex properly now. /C -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Math in LyX wiki
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, [UTF-8] Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Hello LyXers, > > while editing some wiki pages, I found out that wikipedia can handle > math via LaTeX-commands. > LyX's wiki is based on pmwiki and I found out that pmwiki can handle > math via MimeTeX. But MimeTeX-commands don't work on LyX's wiki. Why? Is > it hard to implement? That plugin was actually started by me using a different approach, but there didn't seem to be any desire for it by the lyx developers so I never installed it there. I've added it now in a hackish way, see e.g. http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/Playground/WikiSandbox There are two caveats: * It's not the latest version of mimetex - I can upgrade this if you want me to, or need it. * The binary file, mimetex.cgi is located in my home directory - it doesn't work otherwise, guess som apache configuration needs to be changed to let me put a .cgi somewhere else. Search www.pmwiki.org for 'mimetex' and you'll find lots of examples. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Math in LyX wiki
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > There are two caveats: > > * It's not the latest version of mimetex > > - I can upgrade this if you want me to, or need it. > > I don't need this at the moment, possibly in the next time. But MimeTeX > would certenly useful for other Wiki writers, so that an upgrade > wouldn't harm. I've installed the latest version of mimetex properly now. /C -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Wiki page not linked from lyx.org and some general doc questions
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: Uwe == Uwe Stöhr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Uwe Hello, possibly I'm blind, but I can't find a link from Uwe www.lyx.org to wiki.lyx.org. The link should appear directly in Uwe the navigation bar. Could somebody please add it. Like that? http://www.devel.lyx.org/~lasgouttes/www-user/ Looks good to me. /C -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Wiki page not linked from lyx.org and some general doc questions
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > >>>>> "Uwe" == Uwe Stöhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Uwe> Hello, possibly I'm blind, but I can't find a link from > Uwe> www.lyx.org to wiki.lyx.org. The link should appear directly in > Uwe> the navigation bar. Could somebody please add it. > > Like that? > http://www.devel.lyx.org/~lasgouttes/www-user/ Looks good to me. /C -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: errata
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Jeremy Weathers wrote: On http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/LyX/Mac, the link to cocoAspell (under Tools : Spellcheckers) is a page within a frameset that contains no navigation. Please remove home.html from the end of the link. Since this is a wiki, may I suggest that you remove it yourself? In order to edit a page, click on the 'edit' link in the top right corner... You will also need to know the top secret password. It is... lyx and you can give whatever username you like. ;-) /Christian PS. If you've never used a wiki before, you might want to start here: http://wiki.lyx.org/ have fun! -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: errata
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Jeremy Weathers wrote: > On <http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/LyX/Mac>, the link to cocoAspell (under > Tools : Spellcheckers) is a page within a frameset that contains no > navigation. Please remove "home.html" from the end of the link. Since this is a wiki, may I suggest that you remove it yourself? In order to edit a page, click on the 'edit' link in the top right corner... You will also need to know the top secret password. It is... lyx and you can give whatever username you like. ;-) /Christian PS. If you've never used a wiki before, you might want to start here: http://wiki.lyx.org/ have fun! -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Add a fix to troubleshooting font problems.
I think maybe you've sent the post below to the wrong list? Was it meant for the user's list? /Christian PS. It's a good idea to add tips like the one below to the lyx wiki: http://wiki.lyx.org for instance to a page like http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/LyX/Troubleshooting (edit password is ... 'lyx', and the username doesn't matter). On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Matthew Kennel wrote: I also got the font problems, whereby greek fonts did not show up properly on screen, though things were OK on DVI preview or print out. Instead of manually loading and untarring the font files, there may be a simple fix for some Linux distributions. In particular, I am running Fedora Core 2, and after I had one machine which showed fonts right and one which did not I isolated the problem. The RPM mathml-fonts ought to be installed. On FC2, this is as simple as (as root) yum install mathml-fonts. Perhaps the Redhat/Fedora RPM packager should be notified to require mathml-fonts in the dependency list. cheers Matt Kennel UC San Diego ___ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Add a fix to troubleshooting font problems.
I think maybe you've sent the post below to the wrong list? Was it meant for the user's list? /Christian PS. It's a good idea to add tips like the one below to the lyx wiki: http://wiki.lyx.org for instance to a page like http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/LyX/Troubleshooting (edit password is ... 'lyx', and the username doesn't matter). On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Matthew Kennel wrote: > I also got the font problems, whereby greek fonts did > not show up properly on screen, though things were OK > on DVI preview or print out. > > Instead of manually loading and untarring the font > files, there may be a simple fix for some Linux > distributions. > > In particular, I am running Fedora Core 2, and after I > had one machine which showed fonts right and one which > did not I isolated the problem. > > The RPM "mathml-fonts" ought to be installed. > > On FC2, this is as simple as (as root) "yum install > mathml-fonts". > > Perhaps the Redhat/Fedora RPM packager should be > notified to require mathml-fonts in the dependency > list. > > cheers > Matt Kennel > UC San Diego > > > > ___ > Do you Yahoo!? > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! > http://vote.yahoo.com > > -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Note: The wiki-engine for the LyX wiki-site has been updated
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Uwe Stöhr wrote: Well, nice feature, but when I open the site http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/FAQ/Unsorted I see, that the heading 'Unsorted' is printed over the 'Search Wiki'-link at the top of the page. Thanks, it should be fixed now. I use Opera to browse and forgot to check using IE and Mozilla (I can't check with Mozilla anyway since it segfauls on my machine). It seems that IE (and Mozilla?) doesn't understand this CSS position:absolute; bottom:0ex; where I wanted the search form to appear at the bottom. I've patched it now by giving it's position relative to the top instead. position:absolute; top:9ex; This is is less elegant IMHO, but at least it seems to work. Anyway, thanks again for the report and let me know if you find more problems. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Note: The wiki-engine for the LyX wiki-site has been updated
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Uwe Stöhr wrote: And again a problem: I'm not able to upload a file, by clicking on the link 'Upload file', because the link ends with ?action=upload%20accesskey= It must end with [snip] Quite... I'd forgotten a ' in the HTML template. Thanks! /Christian -- Dr. Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Note: The "wiki-engine" for the LyX wiki-site has been updated
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Well, nice feature, but when I open the site > > http://wiki.lyx.org/pmwiki.php/FAQ/Unsorted > > I see, that the heading 'Unsorted' is printed over the > 'Search Wiki'-link at the top of the page. Thanks, it should be fixed now. I use Opera to browse and forgot to check using IE and Mozilla (I can't check with Mozilla anyway since it segfauls on my machine). It seems that IE (and Mozilla?) doesn't understand this CSS position:absolute; bottom:0ex; where I wanted the search form to appear at the bottom. I've "patched" it now by giving it's position relative to the top instead. position:absolute; top:9ex; This is is less elegant IMHO, but at least it seems to work. Anyway, thanks again for the report and let me know if you find more problems. /Christian -- Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
Re: Note: The "wiki-engine" for the LyX wiki-site has been updated
On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > And again a problem: > > I'm not able to upload a file, by clicking on the link 'Upload file', > because the link ends with > > ?action=upload%20accesskey= > > It must end with [snip] Quite... I'd forgotten a "'" in the HTML template. Thanks! /Christian -- Dr. Christian Ridderström, +46-8-768 39 44 http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
