Richard == Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, but nevertheless the part that reads the .lyx file is weird
(the parts that reads other files is OK-ish).
Richard Can we actually get rid of this? I would assume that the
Richard first version of LyX that reads and writes LyXML (tm) will
On Tuesday 29 May 2007 08:25:02 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
The code to read/write the old format would be moved to lyx2lyx,
AFAIK.
Yes. The change to xml is not different from other file format changes, only
bigger. :-)
JMarc
--
José Abílio
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Richard Heck wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
and a crucial question is of course the following:
who is planning to work on this (and finish it)?
I would help.
Me, too, as I have time.
I would also help (and I have ulterior motives for an XML
> "Richard" == Richard Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yes, but nevertheless the part that reads the .lyx file is weird
>> (the parts that reads other files is OK-ish).
Richard> Can we actually get rid of this? I would assume that the
Richard> first version of LyX that reads and writes
On Tuesday 29 May 2007 08:25:02 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> The code to read/write the old format would be moved to lyx2lyx,
> AFAIK.
Yes. The change to xml is not different from other file format changes, only
bigger. :-)
> JMarc
--
José Abílio
On Mon, 28 May 2007, Richard Heck wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
and a crucial question is of course the following:
who is planning to work on this (and finish it)?
I would help.
Me, too, as I have time.
I would also help (and I have ulterior motives for an XML
José Matos wrote:
Jürgen what is your opinion on this?
Even if this will fall back on me (because this is something I'd really need),
I think this has to wait.
Jürgen
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
José Matos wrote:
Jürgen what is your opinion on this?
Even if this will fall back on me (because this is something I'd really need),
I think this has to wait.
imho the patch solves a very important bug, one which most people would
consider critical:
broken
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
José Matos wrote:
Jürgen what is your opinion on this?
Even if this will fall back on me (because this is something I'd
really need), I think this has to wait.
imho the patch solves a very important bug, one which most people would
consider
Am Montag, 28. Mai 2007 10:55 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
José Matos wrote:
Jürgen what is your opinion on this?
Even if this will fall back on me (because this is something I'd
really need), I think this has to wait.
Definitely.
Georg Baum wrote:
- Is this bug worth it to redo at least one beta to get the patch the same
testing as the other code?
- Is this bug worth it to delay 1.5.0 by binding other peoples time for
testing and implementing the lyx2lyx part?
The answer in both cases is no IMHO.
People, please
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Sorry Edwin, I think - surprise, surprise - that I agree with Georg :-)
no problem.
one question though: since it involves a file format change will it be
possible to introduce it in say 1.5.1?
Edwin Leuven wrote:
one question though: since it involves a file format change will it be
possible to introduce it in say 1.5.1?
No, unfortunately not.
Jürgen
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
one question though: since it involves a file format change will it be
possible to introduce it in say 1.5.1?
No, unfortunately not.
mm, that's what i thought, a pity though given that the patch is very
safe imo...
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
one question though: since it involves a file format change will it be
possible to introduce it in say 1.5.1?
No, unfortunately not.
mm, that's what i thought, a pity though given that the patch is very
safe imo...
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
one question though: since it involves a file format change will it be
possible to introduce it in say 1.5.1?
No, unfortunately not.
mm, that's what i thought, a pity though given that the patch is very
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
That was what I was going to suggest. But then I remembered that the
goal of 1.6 is XML and this alone will take time I guess.
What LyX is going to gain with a XML file format ? Except being buzz
compliant.
I am not sure
that switching to XML and doing minor file
Charles de Miramon wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
That was what I was going to suggest. But then I remembered that the
goal of 1.6 is XML and this alone will take time I guess.
What LyX is going to gain with a XML file format ? Except being buzz
compliant.
XML offers a number of
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
What about for 1.5.0 a patch with the file format change and a small
logic to tell Lyx
to just skip the cline format, if it finds any
for 1.5.1 the gui and the latex generator
Advice from an ignorant,
This is very sensible IMHO. Is this possible Edwin?
sounds good
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
What about
for 1.5.0 a patch with the file format change and a small logic to tell
Lyx to just skip the cline format, if it finds any
for 1.5.1 the gui and the latex generator
Advice from an ignorant,
This is very sensible IMHO. Is this possible Edwin?
On Monday 28 May 2007 12:07:32 Charles de Miramon wrote:
What LyX is going to gain with a XML file format ? Except being buzz
compliant.
We will have our file format supported by all the xml related tools. Think
about the parser, the grammar is easier to define and so on... Currently
there
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
What would that mean if someone opens a file done with, say, 1.5.2 (with
cline support) with 1.5.1 (without cline support)? Will this file be
displayed and exported correctly? Will it be saved correctly, so that the
file again opens without dataloss in 1.5.2?
José Matos wrote:
We gain xsl to write converters to other formats
If KOffice can be point of comparison. Before switching to ODF, we had a xml
format and nobody (well actually one man) wrote any xsl converters because
it seems that everybody hates xslt.
Cheers,
Charles
--
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
What would that mean if someone opens a file done with, say, 1.5.2
(with cline support) with 1.5.1 (without cline support)? Will this
file be displayed and exported correctly? Will it be saved correctly,
so that the file again opens without dataloss in 1.5.2?
you're
Edwin Leuven wrote:
you're right, going back and forth would be a problem so either we do
the full monty or we forget about this.
for 1.5, you mean. You can commit this immediately to trunk as soon as we have
a BRANCH_1_5_X.
fwiw, the attached patch is working great and imho very safe (i
Charles de Miramon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| José Matos wrote:
|
|
|We gain xsl to write converters to other formats
|
| If KOffice can be point of comparison. Before switching to ODF, we had a xml
| format and nobody (well actually one man) wrote any xsl converters because
| it
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
you're right, going back and forth would be a problem so either we do
the full monty or we forget about this.
for 1.5, you mean. You can commit this immediately to trunk as soon as we have
a BRANCH_1_5_X.
ok
The bug is that the top- and
Edwin Leuven wrote:
The bug is that the top- and bottomlines can no longer be toggled in
booktabs mode.
i don't think so.
you cannot toggle the top line on the *first* row and the bottom line on
the last row.
this is intentional: we don't allow the user to toggle these atm (just
create
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
ODF is also xml based afaik.
Yes but the logic of formatting of an ODF file and of a LyX file (modelled
on LaTeX) is very different. There is no preamble for example in ODF.
This blog is interesting and it seems to me that LaTeX is rather similar to
Wordperfect.
On Monday 28 May 2007 15:50:11 Charles de Miramon wrote:
I fail to see what are the big advantages (except reusing an on-the-shelf
parser). Moving away from LaTeX logic will complexify the LyX - LaTeX
process.
I am not sure what you mean above. The xml format is just the middle man. The
data
José Matos wrote:
I am not sure what you mean above. The xml format is just the middle
man. The data inside lyx remain the same.
and a crucial question is of course the following:
who is planning to work on this (and finish it)?
(count me out btw, i intend to do a bit of tabular cleaning...)
Charles de Miramon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
|
| ODF is also xml based afaik.
|
|
| Yes but the logic of formatting of an ODF file and of a LyX file (modelled
| on LaTeX) is very different. There is no preamble for example in ODF.
Right. It also seems to me
José Matos wrote:
On Monday 28 May 2007 15:50:11 Charles de Miramon wrote:
I fail to see what are the big advantages (except reusing an on-the-shelf
parser). Moving away from LaTeX logic will complexify the LyX - LaTeX
process.
I am not sure what you mean above. The xml format is just the
Edwin Leuven wrote:
José Matos wrote:
I am not sure what you mean above. The xml format is just the middle
man. The data inside lyx remain the same.
and a crucial question is of course the following:
who is planning to work on this (and finish it)?
I agree that we should make sure that we
Edwin Leuven [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| José Matos wrote:
| I am not sure what you mean above. The xml format is just the middle
| man. The data inside lyx remain the same.
|
| and a crucial question is of course the following:
|
| who is planning to work on this (and finish it)?
I am. The
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
About the ui: I find it irritating that I have to select the whole row
now to switch lines on/off.
you find it irritating because it is different, but ui-wise i think it
is much more intuitive...
Not for me.
And why should we do it differently than we used to
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Edwin Leuven wrote:
| José Matos wrote:
| I am not sure what you mean above. The xml format is just the middle
| man. The data inside lyx remain the same.
| and a crucial question is of course the following:
| who is planning to work on this (and
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| who is planning to work on this (and finish it)?
I am. The DTD is some 70-80% finished I guess.
Quite a bit of writing is done, parsing/reading is not begun.
i was asking because we should be sure in advance that there is enough
competent and motivated manpower
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Edwin Leuven wrote:
| José Matos wrote:
| I am not sure what you mean above. The xml format is just the middle
| man. The data inside lyx remain the same.
| and a crucial question is of course the following:
| who is
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
and a crucial question is of course the following:
who is planning to work on this (and finish it)?
I would help.
Me, too, as I have time.
Richard
--
==
Richard G Heck, Jr
Professor
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| | Edwin Leuven wrote:
| | José Matos wrote:
| | I am not sure what you mean above. The xml format is just the middle
| | man. The data inside lyx remain the same.
| |
Edwin Leuven wrote:
afaics you need to select the whole row to switch the lines on/off (this
is openoffice 2.1, the same behavior as in word i think)
If the cursor is in the cell without selection, the lines of the whole row
will be toggled, only if you select the cell (in word, I need to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| | Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| | | Edwin Leuven wrote:
| | | José Matos wrote:
| | | I am not sure what you mean above. The xml format is just
Lars == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars IMHO the greatest advantage is a clearly defined format. (and I
Lars am not sure we can really reuse a on-the-shelf parser anyway.
Lars Except the more simplistic sax parsers that is.)
This means also that we can get rid of the .lyx
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Lars == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars IMHO the greatest advantage is a clearly defined format. (and I
Lars am not sure we can really reuse a on-the-shelf parser anyway.
Lars Except the more simplistic sax parsers that is.)
This means also that
Abdelrazak == Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Abdelrazak I dared a few months ago and I've cleaned up a lot of the
Abdelrazak Lexer class. But it was too late in the game and I gave up
Abdelrazak because of the promised XML transition.
Yes, but nevertheless the part that reads the
On Monday 28 May 2007 20:44:57 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Yes, but nevertheless the part that reads the .lyx file is weird (the
parts that reads other files is OK-ish).
I have read this code, fixed some things and I can only agree. :-)
JMarc
--
José Abílio
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak I dared a few months ago and I've cleaned up a lot of the
Abdelrazak Lexer class. But it was too late in the game and I gave up
Abdelrazak because of the promised XML transition.
Yes, but nevertheless the part that reads the .lyx file is weird (the
Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
| Abdelrazak I dared a few months ago and I've cleaned up a lot of the
| Abdelrazak Lexer class. But it was too late in the game and I gave up
| Abdelrazak because of the promised XML transition.
|
| Yes, but nevertheless
José Matos wrote:
> Jürgen what is your opinion on this?
Even if this will fall back on me (because this is something I'd really need),
I think this has to wait.
Jürgen
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
José Matos wrote:
Jürgen what is your opinion on this?
Even if this will fall back on me (because this is something I'd really need),
I think this has to wait.
imho the patch solves a very important bug, one which most people would
consider critical:
broken
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
José Matos wrote:
Jürgen what is your opinion on this?
Even if this will fall back on me (because this is something I'd
really need), I think this has to wait.
imho the patch solves a very important bug, one which most people would
consider
Am Montag, 28. Mai 2007 10:55 schrieb Abdelrazak Younes:
> Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> >> José Matos wrote:
> >>> Jürgen what is your opinion on this?
> >>
> >> Even if this will fall back on me (because this is something I'd
> >> really need), I think this has to wait.
Georg Baum wrote:
- Is this bug worth it to redo at least one beta to get the patch the same
testing as the other code?
- Is this bug worth it to delay 1.5.0 by binding other peoples time for
testing and implementing the lyx2lyx part?
The answer in both cases is no IMHO.
People, please
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Sorry Edwin, I think - surprise, surprise - that I agree with Georg :-)
no problem.
one question though: since it involves a file format change will it be
possible to introduce it in say 1.5.1?
Edwin Leuven wrote:
> one question though: since it involves a file format change will it be
> possible to introduce it in say 1.5.1?
No, unfortunately not.
Jürgen
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
one question though: since it involves a file format change will it be
possible to introduce it in say 1.5.1?
No, unfortunately not.
mm, that's what i thought, a pity though given that the patch is very
safe imo...
Edwin Leuven wrote:
> Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>> Edwin Leuven wrote:
>>> one question though: since it involves a file format change will it be
>>> possible to introduce it in say 1.5.1?
>>
>> No, unfortunately not.
>
> mm, that's what i thought, a pity though given that the patch is very
>
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
one question though: since it involves a file format change will it be
possible to introduce it in say 1.5.1?
No, unfortunately not.
mm, that's what i thought, a pity though given that the patch is very
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> That was what I was going to suggest. But then I remembered that the
> goal of 1.6 is XML and this alone will take time I guess.
What LyX is going to gain with a XML file format ? Except being buzz
compliant.
> I am not sure
> that switching to XML and doing minor
Charles de Miramon wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
That was what I was going to suggest. But then I remembered that the
goal of 1.6 is XML and this alone will take time I guess.
What LyX is going to gain with a XML file format ? Except being buzz
compliant.
XML offers a number of
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
What about for 1.5.0 a patch with the file format change and a small
logic to tell Lyx
to just skip the cline format, if it finds any
for 1.5.1 the gui and the latex generator
Advice from an ignorant,
This is very sensible IMHO. Is this possible Edwin?
sounds good
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > What about
> > for 1.5.0 a patch with the file format change and a small logic to tell
> > Lyx to just skip the cline format, if it finds any
> >
> > for 1.5.1 the gui and the latex generator
> >
> > Advice from an ignorant,
>
> This is very sensible IMHO. Is this
On Monday 28 May 2007 12:07:32 Charles de Miramon wrote:
> What LyX is going to gain with a XML file format ? Except being buzz
> compliant.
We will have our file format supported by all the xml related tools. Think
about the parser, the grammar is easier to define and so on... Currently
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>
> What would that mean if someone opens a file done with, say, 1.5.2 (with
> cline support) with 1.5.1 (without cline support)? Will this file be
> displayed and exported correctly? Will it be saved correctly, so that the
> file again opens without dataloss in 1.5.2?
José Matos wrote:
>
> We gain xsl to write converters to other formats
If KOffice can be point of comparison. Before switching to ODF, we had a xml
format and nobody (well actually one man) wrote any xsl converters because
it seems that everybody hates xslt.
Cheers,
Charles
--
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
What would that mean if someone opens a file done with, say, 1.5.2
(with cline support) with 1.5.1 (without cline support)? Will this
file be displayed and exported correctly? Will it be saved correctly,
so that the file again opens without dataloss in 1.5.2?
you're
Edwin Leuven wrote:
> you're right, going back and forth would be a problem so either we do
> the full monty or we forget about this.
for 1.5, you mean. You can commit this immediately to trunk as soon as we have
a BRANCH_1_5_X.
> fwiw, the attached patch is working great and imho very safe (i
Charles de Miramon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| José Matos wrote:
|
| >
| > We gain xsl to write converters to other formats
|
| If KOffice can be point of comparison. Before switching to ODF, we had a xml
| format and nobody (well actually one man) wrote any xsl converters because
| it
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Edwin Leuven wrote:
you're right, going back and forth would be a problem so either we do
the full monty or we forget about this.
for 1.5, you mean. You can commit this immediately to trunk as soon as we have
a BRANCH_1_5_X.
ok
The bug is that the top- and
Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > The bug is that the top- and bottomlines can no longer be toggled in
> > booktabs mode.
>
> i don't think so.
>
> you cannot toggle the top line on the *first* row and the bottom line on
> the last row.
>
> this is intentional: we don't allow the user to toggle these atm
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> ODF is also xml based afaik.
>
Yes but the logic of formatting of an ODF file and of a LyX file (modelled
on LaTeX) is very different. There is no preamble for example in ODF.
This blog is interesting and it seems to me that LaTeX is rather similar to
Wordperfect.
On Monday 28 May 2007 15:50:11 Charles de Miramon wrote:
> I fail to see what are the big advantages (except reusing an on-the-shelf
> parser). Moving away from LaTeX logic will complexify the LyX -> LaTeX
> process.
I am not sure what you mean above. The xml format is just the middle man. The
José Matos wrote:
I am not sure what you mean above. The xml format is just the middle
man. The data inside lyx remain the same.
and a crucial question is of course the following:
who is planning to work on this (and finish it)?
(count me out btw, i intend to do a bit of tabular cleaning...)
Charles de Miramon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
|
| > ODF is also xml based afaik.
| >
|
| Yes but the logic of formatting of an ODF file and of a LyX file (modelled
| on LaTeX) is very different. There is no preamble for example in ODF.
Right. It also seems to
José Matos wrote:
On Monday 28 May 2007 15:50:11 Charles de Miramon wrote:
I fail to see what are the big advantages (except reusing an on-the-shelf
parser). Moving away from LaTeX logic will complexify the LyX -> LaTeX
process.
I am not sure what you mean above. The xml format is just the
Edwin Leuven wrote:
José Matos wrote:
I am not sure what you mean above. The xml format is just the middle
man. The data inside lyx remain the same.
and a crucial question is of course the following:
who is planning to work on this (and finish it)?
I agree that we should make sure that we
Edwin Leuven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| José Matos wrote:
| > I am not sure what you mean above. The xml format is just the middle
| > man. The data inside lyx remain the same.
|
| and a crucial question is of course the following:
|
| who is planning to work on this (and finish it)?
I am.
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
About the ui: I find it irritating that I have to select the whole row
now to switch lines on/off.
you find it irritating because it is different, but ui-wise i think it
is much more intuitive...
Not for me.
And why should we do it differently than we used to
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Edwin Leuven wrote:
| > José Matos wrote:
| >> I am not sure what you mean above. The xml format is just the middle
| >> man. The data inside lyx remain the same.
| > and a crucial question is of course the following:
| > who is planning to work on
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| who is planning to work on this (and finish it)?
I am. The DTD is some 70-80% finished I guess.
Quite a bit of writing is done, parsing/reading is not begun.
i was asking because we should be sure in advance that there is enough
competent and motivated manpower
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Edwin Leuven wrote:
| > José Matos wrote:
| >> I am not sure what you mean above. The xml format is just the middle
| >> man. The data inside lyx remain the same.
| > and a crucial question is of course the following:
|
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Edwin Leuven wrote:
>> and a crucial question is of course the following:
>> who is planning to work on this (and finish it)?
> I would help.
Me, too, as I have time.
Richard
--
==
Richard G Heck, Jr
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| > Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | Edwin Leuven wrote:
| > | > José Matos wrote:
| > | >> I am not sure what you mean above. The xml format is just the middle
| > | >> man. The data inside lyx remain
Edwin Leuven wrote:
> afaics you need to select the whole row to switch the lines on/off (this
> is openoffice 2.1, the same behavior as in word i think)
If the cursor is in the cell without selection, the lines of the whole row
will be toggled, only if you select the cell (in word, I need to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Gullik Bjønnes) writes:
| Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| | > Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| | > | Edwin Leuven wrote:
| | > | > José Matos wrote:
| | > | >> I am not sure what you mean above. The xml
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> IMHO the greatest advantage is a clearly defined format. (and I
Lars> am not sure we can really reuse a on-the-shelf parser anyway.
Lars> Except the more simplistic sax parsers that is.)
This means also that we can get rid of
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> IMHO the greatest advantage is a clearly defined format. (and I
Lars> am not sure we can really reuse a on-the-shelf parser anyway.
Lars> Except the more simplistic sax parsers that is.)
This means
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> I dared a few months ago and I've cleaned up a lot of the
Abdelrazak> Lexer class. But it was too late in the game and I gave up
Abdelrazak> because of the promised XML transition.
Yes, but nevertheless the part that
On Monday 28 May 2007 20:44:57 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Yes, but nevertheless the part that reads the .lyx file is weird (the
> parts that reads other files is OK-ish).
I have read this code, fixed some things and I can only agree. :-)
> JMarc
--
José Abílio
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Abdelrazak> I dared a few months ago and I've cleaned up a lot of the
> Abdelrazak> Lexer class. But it was too late in the game and I gave up
> Abdelrazak> because of the promised XML transition.
>
> Yes, but nevertheless the part that reads the .lyx file is weird
Richard Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
| > Abdelrazak> I dared a few months ago and I've cleaned up a lot of the
| > Abdelrazak> Lexer class. But it was too late in the game and I gave up
| > Abdelrazak> because of the promised XML transition.
| >
| > Yes, but
Edwin Leuven wrote:
proper cline support.
slightly updated patch attached.
1. lyx's default lines are now set, and
2. double check on reading line settings in existing docs
ping!
Index: src/frontends/controllers/ControlTabular.cpp
the only problem with my cline support patch comes from the fact lyx
spits out a lot of garbage in the tabular settings (so not really a
problem with my patch but rather with our crappy tabular code)
to illustrate -- and remember: line settings at the cell level are
currently ignored *except*
On Sunday 27 May 2007 18:32:16 Edwin Leuven wrote:
the only problem with my cline support patch comes from the fact lyx
spits out a lot of garbage in the tabular settings (so not really a
problem with my patch but rather with our crappy tabular code)
Edwin,
I am not sure now is the
José Matos wrote:
On Sunday 27 May 2007 18:32:16 Edwin Leuven wrote:
the only problem with my cline support patch comes from the fact lyx
spits out a lot of garbage in the tabular settings (so not really a
problem with my patch but rather with our crappy tabular code)
Edwin,
I am not sure
On Sunday 27 May 2007 19:27:10 Edwin Leuven wrote:
i am not on a crusade here, but as said, it is tiny and gives something
relatively big.
oh, and it solves an inconsistency between the dialog and the toolbar
(am i allowed to call that a bug? ;-)
Jürgen what is your opinion on this?
I am
José Matos wrote:
On Sunday 27 May 2007 19:27:10 Edwin Leuven wrote:
i am not on a crusade here, but as said, it is tiny and gives something
relatively big.
oh, and it solves an inconsistency between the dialog and the toolbar
(am i allowed to call that a bug? ;-)
Jürgen what is your
Edwin Leuven wrote:
updated patch attached:
igonore the previous one, and use the one attached instead and it:
- takes into account booktabs
- fixes a bug where topline in 1st row and bottom line in last row were
not set with booktabs (create a booktabs table without lines to check)
-
Edwin Leuven wrote:
proper cline support.
slightly updated patch attached.
1. lyx's default lines are now set, and
2. double check on reading line settings in existing docs
ping!
Index: src/frontends/controllers/ControlTabular.cpp
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
