On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:56:33 +0200
Roberto <foice.n...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 31/07/2017 19:10, Steve Litt wrote:
> > The ability to directly edit graphics within a LyX file would be a
> > nice *option*:  
> Hi Steve, I hope I am quoting you correctly by only reporting the 
> sentence I want to comment about.
> As far as I can understand the feature I am talking about does not 
> require _editing_ graphics. It just requires an option (which can be
> set as default as well) to copy any graphics the user pastes or links
> into a hidden folder that is managed LyX. Documents at that point
> become "LyX archives" made of a "myfile.lyx" and a
> ".stuff_for_myfile" folder, nicely archived into a single thing, that
> you may call a .LyXar (archive file). You have a script for .lyx
> file, you can still use it on all .lyx files and you can use it as
> well for .LyXar because all you need to do is unzip the file, work on
> the .lyx, and zip it again ...
> You went a long way in your message, partly, I presume, on the idea
> of _editing_ graphics in LyX, but this is not what I was talking
> about. Let me know if I have misunderstood your words ...

Being able to click components within an "archive" type of file format
is about the only benefit I see. Which is why I brought it up. Without
even that benefit, I don't see the point in changing the file format
and breaking everybody's scripts and work flow.


Steve Litt 
July 2017 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business

Reply via email to