Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Bo Peng wrote:
Users can edit the bundled copy directly IF the file isn't wrapped.
But your approach has nothing to do with wrap, Right? :-)
You do not really know what you are talking about here. Wrapped or
not, when a lyx file is edited, filename.lyxdir is there and users are
allowed to edit the bundled copy directly. For example, if you have a
bundled file in zip or base64 format, when you open it, because the
insets refers to files such as filename.lyxdir/figures/figure.png, you
will create such a directory under the document directory. Isn't that
true?
In my case, embedded files are always invisible.
Not true. Being in the temp folder doesn't mean they are invisible.
General remark on base64 versus zip before I shut up on this subject:
The base64 approach is an easy way to solve the embedding problem
(that's the RTF approach). I personally think supporting base64
embedding is interesting but should not be used for bundling purpose.
IOW I think base64 is especially suited for the embedding of small
objects like icons and the like without having to think in terms of
bundling and zipping. So no, sorry Bo, I don't think that's a proper
solution for bundling a lyx file; this solution should IMHO just be
used for small object embedding.
Going to a zipped subfolder means more, much more, if you think in
terms of ODF. And I do think we should make our format slowly evolve
towards ODF in the 1.7 devel. That being said, I am not convinced the
lyxdir folder should be along the lyx file and not in the temp
directory, hidden to the user (as OO does). So, this would mean that
bundled should necessary mean wrapped into a lyz file or something.
If the file is wrapped, then it would be unpacked in the temporary
directory: wrapping is essentially just an extension of compression. If
it's not wrapped, then of course it doesn't need to be unpacked.
rh
