On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Guenter Milde <mi...@users.sf.net> wrote:
> On 2013-01-22, Nico Williams wrote:
>> There was a thread about this a while back and the conclusion was that
>> I'm on my own with this, that for now my lyx2xml is not to be part of
>> LyX.  Partly there's a desire to consider making XML a native thing in
>> LyX, and partly there's a desire to not add more things into the LyX
>> source tree that might break when new features are added elsewhere in
>> the tree.
>
> Please don't be discouraged to continue the work on and publication of
> the lyx2xml script. I think it is a useful addition to LyX.

I'm not.  I soldier one because I want to use LyX and I need XML.  In
fact, for *my* use cases the script is done.  It's not complete
however, and I was hoping others would be interested in contributing.
Instead it seems I will have to finish my XSLs (I'm doing this in my
spare time) and write a nice blog post about all this (with some
exposition of XSL code and explanations) to get people interested.

I've been surprised at how close .lyx is to being a form of XML, and
how irritating some of the ways in which it's not are.  (For example,
when mixing text styles there's no well-formed-XML-like closing of
"tags".  The most irritating thing by far is the fact that description
lists items' title/description are separated by the first breaking
space.)

> I don't know whether it will become possible to have "painless" LyX<->Word
> conversions at all, because the document models differ widely, but XSL may
> still be the best route for this conversion.

Right, there may be loss of metadata, and it may be that multiple
XSLs, or one with many options, will be needed to provide a useful
experience.  That's to be expected in schema transformations.

Nico
--

Reply via email to