On Friday 15 April 2005 15:52, Steve Litt wrote: > > Why change the LyX native language? It's incredibly readable and parsable > the way it is. I'd need to rewrite my otl2lyx utility, and probably 5 or > 10 other program's I've written to process LyX native files.
No need for that, you can use lyx2lyx that comes with the lyx package. :-) It converts between the different lyx file formats. And starting with 1.4 it can also backconvert most of the code for 1.3 also. > Wouldn't the incorporation of the Xerces parser bloat up LyX? If you use > DOM to handle the XML in memory, it limits filesize. If you use SAX, > well, it's kinda nasty IMHO, and might require multiple runs through the > file for many functionalities. XML can be used simply as an archive media, all the objects would remain the same as they are now. > If it were me prioritizing new features to LyX, I'd put in character > styles and a facility to make environment creation and modification much > easier. Already there in 1.4 (well they can improve but clearly those are very easy now). > To summarize, in my opinion the current LyX native format is line > oriented, and therefor easily parsed without a special parser, and > intuitively obvious within a text editor. XML would not have these > advantages. But has some others. This was discussed extensively in the developers list several times in the past. Those are archived. > SteveT > > Steve Litt > Author: > * Universal Troubleshooting Process courseware > * Troubleshooting Techniques of the Successful Technologist > * Rapid Learning: Secret Weapon of the Successful Technologist > Webmaster > * Troubleshooters.Com > * http://www.troubleshooters.com -- Jos� Ab�lio
