>>>>> "Joacim" == Joacim Persson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Joacim> I gave it a second though on be bus home yesterday; forget the
Joacim> `family' file, it's not necessary. Instead we can have one
Joacim> more lines for the Style-definitions in the layout files; a
Joacim> named Category. ...it's allways only a matter of comparing
Joacim> two layouts at the time, so the whole family doesn't have to
Joacim> be gathered. Besides, this is easier to implement. ;)
Yes, we need something like that, or rather:
LatexType section
SectionLevel 1
The idea is that there are many features of LyX that should depend on
the type (numbered/not/numbered, put in the TOC, equivalence between
classes, ...).
Joacim> OK, I see your point ("Itemize" would have been a better
Joacim> example -- I think it makes sense to have the same word in the
Joacim> env.list as is used for the label string in the doc view.
Joacim> Itemize is just a name and has little to do with the
Joacim> document.) But don't use gettext for that or you'll be
Joacim> expected to release a new fr.po each time someone adds a
Joacim> layout for some obscure LaTeX-class. ;)
Joacim> There is also a risk of name clashes as gettext only have one
Joacim> entry for the original strings; if the same name is used for
Joacim> two completely different purposes in two different classes,
Joacim> well... po-files doesn't scale well.
Agreed.
Joacim> Another thing about layout files I'm not quite happy with is
Joacim> the NoStyle-statements. I think it would be clearer to define
Joacim> what environments are available in a certain layout by listing
Joacim> them in the layout file rathter than removing styles from a
Joacim> perhaps varying set.
Well, the NoStyle statement was something I put together quickly when
I added support for Input and CopyStyle. It allowed for a lot of
simplifications in the classes at a small cost...
JMarc
