Re: XML format status

Gour D. wrote: btw, is it comparable in the sense of being more complete than LateX2e preventing clashes between different packages or just 'another macro package' ? I'm not so much into the internals of latex3 development. I think they try to generally overcome some fundamental limitations

Re: XML format status

Gour D. wrote: OT: Can someone explain me what is the aim of latex-3 development in the light of LuaTeX or LuaTeX will be just another implementation? LaTeX3 is a new macro collection (so it aims to replace LateX2e and is comparable to ConTeXt). LuaTeX is a processor (such as XeTeX or PDFTeX

Re: XML format status

On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 07:49:26 +0200 Jürgen == Jürgen Spitzmüller sp...@lyx.org wrote: Jürgen LaTeX3 is a new macro collection (so it aims to replace Jürgen LateX2e and is comparable to ConTeXt). Ahh...I got this one now. Thanks. btw, is it comparable in the sense of being more complete than

Re: XML format status

Gour D. wrote: > btw, is it comparable in the sense of being more complete than LateX2e > preventing clashes between different packages or just 'another macro > package' ? I'm not so much into the internals of latex3 development. I think they try to generally overcome some fundamental

Re: XML format status

Gour D. wrote: > OT: Can someone explain me what is the aim of latex-3 development in > the light of LuaTeX or LuaTeX will be just another implementation? LaTeX3 is a new macro collection (so it aims to replace LateX2e and is comparable to ConTeXt). LuaTeX is a processor (such as XeTeX or PDFTeX

Re: XML format status

On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 07:49:26 +0200 >> "Jürgen" == Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Jürgen> LaTeX3 is a new macro collection (so it aims to replace Jürgen> LateX2e and is comparable to ConTeXt). Ahh...I got this one now. Thanks. btw, is it comparable in the sense of being more

Re: XML format status

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 05:27:58 +0200 Peter == Peter Kümmel syntheti...@gmx.net wrote: Excuse me for dropping in so lately... I sent a post about LyX/LATeX vs ConTeXt on users list e days ago stating that I plan to abandon idea to use the latter and 'return' back to winning team. Now, I've

Re: XML format status

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 05:27:58 +0200 >> "Peter" == Peter Kümmel wrote: Excuse me for dropping in so lately... I sent a post about LyX/LATeX vs ConTeXt on users list e days ago stating that I plan to abandon idea to use the latter and 'return' back to winning team. Now,

Re: XML format status

On 09/06/10 04:27, Peter Kümmel wrote: Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2010, 17:22 -0400 schrieb Richard Heck: On 06/08/2010 03:49 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2010, 20:52 +0200 schrieb Andre Poenitz: On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 04:29:21PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On

Re: XML format status

On 2010-06-08, Sam Liddicott wrote: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --050502020101020702060201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 08/06/10 15:27, Pavel Sanda wrote: Sam Liddicott wrote: I also still

Re: XML format status

Guenter Milde wrote: On 2010-06-08, Sam Liddicott wrote: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --050502020101020702060201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 08/06/10 15:27, Pavel Sanda wrote: Sam

Re: XML format status

Sam Liddicott wrote: I would prefer a more readable format than XML like json, even I would use Lua, because it is the future scripting languange in LaTeX, but I assume we could never explain the rest of the world, why we we don't use beloved XML. So let's use XML. And validating a XML with a

Re: XML format status

On 09/06/10 09:10, Pavel Sanda wrote: Guenter Milde wrote: On 2010-06-08, Sam Liddicott wrote: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --050502020101020702060201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 08/06/10 15:27,

Re: XML format status

Sam Liddicott wrote: Thanks - you give me good hope. It is ironic that I want to use Lyx to avoid having to know docbook too well, but may have to learn it to fixup lyx! we are waiting for your mail :) pavel

Re: XML format status

On 09/06/10 04:27, Peter Kümmel wrote: Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2010, 17:22 -0400 schrieb Richard Heck: On 06/08/2010 03:49 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2010, 20:52 +0200 schrieb Andre Poenitz: On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 04:29:21PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On

Re: XML format status

On 2010-06-08, Sam Liddicott wrote: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > --050502020101020702060201 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > On 08/06/10 15:27, Pavel Sanda wrote: >> Sam Liddicott wrote: >>> I also

Re: XML format status

Guenter Milde wrote: > On 2010-06-08, Sam Liddicott wrote: > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > --050502020101020702060201 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > > On 08/06/10 15:27, Pavel Sanda wrote:

Re: XML format status

Sam Liddicott wrote: >> I would prefer a more readable format than XML like json, even I would >> use Lua, because it is the future scripting languange in LaTeX, but >> I assume we could never explain the rest of the world, why we we don't >> use beloved XML. So let's use XML. And validating a XML

Re: XML format status

On 09/06/10 09:10, Pavel Sanda wrote: Guenter Milde wrote: On 2010-06-08, Sam Liddicott wrote: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --050502020101020702060201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 08/06/10 15:27,

Re: XML format status

Sam Liddicott wrote: > Thanks - you give me good hope. > It is ironic that I want to use Lyx to avoid having to know docbook too > well, but may have to learn it to fixup lyx! we are waiting for your mail :) pavel

XML format status

What is the current status or thinking of the XML format for lyx 2? Sam -- *Sam's signature*

Re: XML format status

What is the current status or thinking of the XML format for lyx 2? Ideally, LyX 2 would have an XML file format. However, no-one is actively working on the issue, so we postponed it. As far as I know, we didn't really decide when and how to do the transition. Are you interested in having an

Re: XML format status

On 08/06/10 14:27, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: What is the current status or thinking of the XML format for lyx 2? Ideally, LyX 2 would have an XML file format. However, no-one is actively working on the issue, so we postponed it. As far as I know, we didn't really decide when and how to

Re: XML format status

Sam Liddicott wrote: I also still dream about lyx being the first decent docbook editor. are you aware of the fact that lyx already have output routines for docbook? pavel

Re: XML format status

On 06/08/2010 03:27 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: What is the current status or thinking of the XML format for lyx 2? Ideally, LyX 2 would have an XML file format. However, no-one is actively working on the issue, so we postponed it. As far as I know, we didn't really decide when

Re: XML format status

On 08/06/10 15:27, Pavel Sanda wrote: Sam Liddicott wrote: I also still dream about lyx being the first decent docbook editor. are you aware of the fact that lyx already have output routines for docbook? Yes, but I recall being told that it wasn't supported and that if it still worked it

Re: XML format status

On 08/06/10 15:29, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 06/08/2010 03:27 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: What is the current status or thinking of the XML format for lyx 2? Ideally, LyX 2 would have an XML file format. However, no-one is actively working on the issue, so we postponed it. As far as

Re: XML format status

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 04:29:21PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 06/08/2010 03:27 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: What is the current status or thinking of the XML format for lyx 2? Ideally, LyX 2 would have an XML file format. However, no-one is actively working on the issue, so we

Re: XML format status

Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2010, 20:52 +0200 schrieb Andre Poenitz: On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 04:29:21PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 06/08/2010 03:27 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: What is the current status or thinking of the XML format for lyx 2? Ideally, LyX 2 would have an XML

Re: XML format status

On 06/08/2010 03:49 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2010, 20:52 +0200 schrieb Andre Poenitz: On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 04:29:21PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 06/08/2010 03:27 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: What is the current status or thinking of the

Re: XML format status

Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2010, 17:22 -0400 schrieb Richard Heck: On 06/08/2010 03:49 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2010, 20:52 +0200 schrieb Andre Poenitz: On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 04:29:21PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 06/08/2010 03:27 PM, Vincent van

XML format status

What is the current status or thinking of the XML format for lyx 2? Sam -- *Sam's signature*

Re: XML format status

> What is the current status or thinking of the XML format for lyx 2? > Ideally, LyX 2 would have an XML file format. However, no-one is actively working on the issue, so we postponed it. As far as I know, we didn't really decide when and how to do the transition. Are you interested in having

Re: XML format status

On 08/06/10 14:27, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: What is the current status or thinking of the XML format for lyx 2? Ideally, LyX 2 would have an XML file format. However, no-one is actively working on the issue, so we postponed it. As far as I know, we didn't really decide when and how to

Re: XML format status

Sam Liddicott wrote: > I also still dream about lyx being the first decent docbook editor. are you aware of the fact that lyx already have output routines for docbook? pavel

Re: XML format status

On 06/08/2010 03:27 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: What is the current status or thinking of the XML format for lyx 2? Ideally, LyX 2 would have an XML file format. However, no-one is actively working on the issue, so we postponed it. As far as I know, we didn't really decide when

Re: XML format status

On 08/06/10 15:27, Pavel Sanda wrote: Sam Liddicott wrote: I also still dream about lyx being the first decent docbook editor. are you aware of the fact that lyx already have output routines for docbook? Yes, but I recall being told that it wasn't supported and that if it still worked it

Re: XML format status

On 08/06/10 15:29, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 06/08/2010 03:27 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: What is the current status or thinking of the XML format for lyx 2? Ideally, LyX 2 would have an XML file format. However, no-one is actively working on the issue, so we postponed it. As far as

Re: XML format status

On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 04:29:21PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > On 06/08/2010 03:27 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > >>What is the current status or thinking of the XML format for lyx 2? > >> > >Ideally, LyX 2 would have an XML file format. However, no-one is > >actively working on the

Re: XML format status

Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2010, 20:52 +0200 schrieb Andre Poenitz: > On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 04:29:21PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > > On 06/08/2010 03:27 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: > > >>What is the current status or thinking of the XML format for lyx 2? > > >> > > >Ideally, LyX 2 would

Re: XML format status

On 06/08/2010 03:49 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2010, 20:52 +0200 schrieb Andre Poenitz: On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 04:29:21PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: On 06/08/2010 03:27 PM, Vincent van Ravesteijn wrote: What is the current status or thinking of the

Re: XML format status

Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2010, 17:22 -0400 schrieb Richard Heck: > On 06/08/2010 03:49 PM, Peter Kümmel wrote: > > Am Dienstag, den 08.06.2010, 20:52 +0200 schrieb Andre Poenitz: > > > >> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 04:29:21PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote: > >> > >>> On 06/08/2010 03:27 PM,