On Fri, Aug 03, 2018 at 09:51:28AM +0000, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Am Freitag, den 03.08.2018, 11:28 +0200 schrieb Kornel Benko: > > Until now we never had this dependency. (Yes, I know this is not a > > nice argument, > > since _we_ want something new) > > The point is: this was a bug. I tried to explain multiple times what > the bug was (wrong hyphenation, encoding errors, etc.), but I will stop > now since this does not seem to reach you.
I would like to make an attempt to summarize so that I, and anyone else who would like to, can join this fun debate. I would appreciate it if someone would correct me where I am wrong in the summary. I think we all agree that the following general principles are reasonable in most cases: General Principle 1 (GP1): document output should not depend on preferences, but rather only on document settings. General Principle 2 (GP2): PDF output should reflect [1] the LyX display. I believe (again, please correct me), that the question in this thread is about whether we should make an exception to GP1 for the following case: Suppose that someone who's GUI language is XYZ is reading an example/template/manual document in English, and the document refers to a menu entry (or keyboard shortcut, etc.). We can either output the menu entry in English, or we can output the menu entry in language XYZ. The question is: which should we output? On the one hand, since the user's GUI is in language XYZ, the localized menu entry makes sense (otherwise, the user would have to translate the English string into language XYZ to apply it, which is non-trivial in some cases). On the other hand, if we output language XYZ, we violate GP1. If all of our documents were 100% translated to language XYZ, this problem might not be important, because the user would likely read the document in language XYZ rather than reading it in English. However, most of our documents are not 100% translated, and it is very common for users with non-English GUIs to read English documents. Another question that I saw come up is: should the LyX display be the same as the PDF output? From what I understand, before the change, the LyX display was localized to the GUI language, but the LaTeX output was not localized. Now, both are localized. In other words, before the change, GP2 was violated but GP1 was not. Now it is the opposite: GP1 is violated but GP2 is not. Kornel made a proposal to allow the user to control the tradeoff of violating GP1 versus the convenience of outputting the localized string, either by using a document setting or with a command-line option. I don't see any disagreement with the idea that if the GUI language is used for the menu entry, the LaTeX output should correctly support the language so that e.g. encoding and hyphens are correct. The disagreement is only with the antecedent of that statement [2] (the "if the GUI language is used" part). Please make corrections to the above summary. If the above summary is reasonable, then I suppose we need to debate the value of GP1, or symmetrically the cost of violating it. Why is GP1 important to us? Can we violate it for insets that only LyX developers use, such as info insets? etc. Scott [1] I don't know a better term than "reflects" here, although "reflect" does not feel right. [2] I had to look this word up. I hope I got it correct.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
