On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Andre' Poenitz wrote:
> > On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Jules Bean wrote:
> > > I would quite like, personally, a LyX-like program which is a more generic
> > > 'structured' document editor. Probably an XML editor, with the ability to
> > > backend onto LaTeX, but also other formats. If I have time, I may have a
> > > look at that problem.
> >
> > Don't run off and reinvent the wheel.
>
> I am actually fully sympathetic with Jules.
So am I, I just don't see much point in starting yet-another-word-processor
project when it's possible to improve an existing one. Especially with
many if not all the developers of LyX already trying to head LyX in that
direction.
> The problem is not 'reinventing the wheel'. That is not necessary.
> I have the feeling that most people here share more or less the same
> vision of what constitutes a Good Document Processor.
>
> The actual difference are the various ideas of how to get there.
> There are advantages and disadvantages with both approaches.
[...]
> The second is better - once you get through. If you get stuck,
> you lose everything.
We tried to make a giant leap forward with the previous development branch
but with only six or so in the team we couldn't get the momentum to get
airborne. Hence the demise of the old branch and the change of plan to a
softly softly approach. Lots of little safe steps. At least we can
backport the major changes from the old development strand and LyX will
evolve over time into the glorious wonder we all want it to become.
> I have to admit that I not yet convinced which one I consider the better,
> although I am fairly sure that I'd take the second approach if it were
> my work and I had enough resources to spend.
...............^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
We didn't. Maybe some more noise and hype might have gotton more people
to help out. Admittedly we were taking the trail and turning it into a
highway in one go (to butcher your analogies) rather than starting a whole
new highway.
> I'd be really interested in some 'test project': Read in an XML file,
> display it nicely *including math*, export it to tex. Just to convince
> me that the second approach is not *much* better than the first ;-)
If someone were to take this leap I'd suggest getting Asger's kernel first
so you minimised your work. Either that or just start generalising the
docbook support now instead of waiting for the docbook support to be
complete.
> > Once Docbook is well supported we can then generalise ie. walk before we
> > can run.
> > Allan. (ARRae)
>
> Well. You do not need to run once you've learned how to fly ;-)
Argueably you only get airborne by either running faster or jumping off a
cliff. At least if you fail to takeoff while running you still have a
life ahead of you ;-)
Allan. (ARRae)
