Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Am 15.01.2013 22:24, schrieb Georg Baum: > >> IMHO, IEEEtran.cls does not support Uwe's reasoning at all, but rather >> the oppsosite. And I'd really like to see _one_ example of an updated >> journal/conference .cls file that broke an officially supported LyX >> .layout file (and no, unless somebody presents at least one incompatible >> change of the ACM classes that started this thread I won't believe that >> the new versions are backward incompatible: I only saw new commands, not >> changed or deleted old ones). > > That is what I always stated, non of my changes (except of that nasty > modernCV beast) break the backward-compatibility in the strict sense but > they introduce new commands and that is what this thread is about.
Yes. In the beginning, I thought that these new commands are urgently needed, and that you therefore want them in the stable release. Now I learned that none of the new commands is urgently needed (maybe except modernCV), which I tried to explain above. Therefore it is no problem at all to limit the new commands to the 2.1 release IMO. > I now understood what you all basically want. Although that I am not a fan > of the versioning, if a majority favors this, we do it. But I want to know > how _exactly_ the preferred model works. What layout version is rename to > what? There were many proposals, I don't have the time right now to make a summary. In any case I would change the error message that you get when an unknown style is found (it says "Parse error", and tells the places where it occurs), to a warning explaining that you can safely edit the document, but that the printed output will not be correct. Georg
