On Thursday 13 May 2004 19:13, Chris Karakas wrote: > > OK, that is true but since we now have also xml... :-) And other > > tools to process the output. > > I know I have persuaded you for my argument, but I would like to expand > on this a bit: > > What do you mean by "since we now have also xml"? Do you suggest that XML > tools do not complain about xrefs to anchors, so we could forget SGML and > use the XML toolchain?
Ok, the previous emoticon should be a ;-), because that was the kind of argument. I would not take such a decision based on the absence of support for anchors, that would be pure madness. :-) Even so, IMO it is a fault of those tools. > If this is what you mean, then I am against it. Using lyxtox the way it > is now, I can produce Certainly not, xml is (will be in 1.4) another option, that is from the same file you can produce both a sgml and a xml versions. So the objectif is to add choice, not to remove it. > - a superb PDF, with images, inline graphics, mathematics set by TeX etc. > > - RTF > > - HTML, with mathematics > > - use bibliographic databases like RefDB: > > http://refdb.sourceforge.net And those are some tools that want to have better integrated with lyx. :-) [...] Conclusion: xml will be another option not the only option. Take as an example mathematics: I would like to export the tex version attached to the sgml version, to be processed using the DBTeXMath way, and the mathml version with the xml. Have I been clear now? :-) > Chris -- José Abílio LyX and docbook, a perfect match. :-)
