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 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 do the > >>>> transition. > >>>> > >>> I worked recently with JSon format (www.json.org), cleaner to the > >>> human, faster to parse and less verbose than XML, quite nice... > >>> > >> This might indeed be a good option. > >> > > http://gitorious.org/JsonQt/ > > http://gitorious.org/qjson > > > > > > But the question remains what is the aim of the new format: is it for > > us, or is it for other who wanna generate, manipulate, ... LyX files. > > > > > My understanding was that the point was to make the LyX format more > easily parsable by LyX and, in particular, to provide validation that a > file really is in the proper format. So, for us, but without breaking > the easy manipulability of LyX files via sed, awk, etc. >
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 DTD is really an advantage. Peter
