On 12 June 2013 03:57, stefano franchi <stefano.fran...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Ray Rashif <schivmeis...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> On 11 June 2013 14:15, Rainer M Krug <rai...@krugs.de> wrote:
>> I wanted to survey the LyX and LaTeX community for some opinions on this,
>> perhaps to get an idea as to the demand for some research into this area.
>> The project would do some empirical comparisons of the workarounds and
>> propose at most two or three solutions that work (integration with Pandoc,
>> or converintg directly to a simpler and well-supported language).
>> The emphasis would be on retaining as much semantic meaning as possible,
>> across different levels of complexity, starting from the very basic. I am
>> not aware of any similar academic or non-academic effort, but this could
>> also be a long blog post.
> HI Ray,
> I am not sure about what you're asking, exactly? Perhaps a survey of the
> different lyx-doc(x) use cases that current lyx users care most about? Or
> rather a definition of the simplest yet still useful use case we can
> imagine? If the former, I would suggest starting a page on our wiki,
> perhaps as a possible GSoC 2014 project, as a repository of useful cases
> people could refer to. If the latter...well I'd need further info because
> I'm not really sure what you're aiming for.

Hey Stefano

Sorry for the lack of clarity there -- probably a mistake of dumping one or
two things I had on my mind without context. I was referring to
cross-platform document interoperability for collaborative writing and
editing, not really LyX-specific but very much related, and not really a
new issue.

If there are people indeed affected by this, and they would like some
documentation, then I'd like to put in some time to review current issues
and strategies, and produce working code to convert a non-friendly format
into a pluggable one (into LyX, LaTeX, Pandoc) for _only_ the use cases
that matter most (according to the target audience; writers, editors,
fiction or non-fiction).

Often times I have found myself dealing with only a subset of formatting
tools during the first phase of a write-up, in most cases a draft, and I
would often make the mistake of thinking they're simple enough to not break
collaboration. I would assume many of our workflows start with sections,
followed by emphasis (boldface and italics), then simple lists (itemized
and enumerated), footnotes, and finally citations.

Personally I have never needed anything more complex like cross-references,
tables and images -- I always schedule them for later phases because they
interrupt the workflow, although I do make space for them informally (using
characters I can easily search for). At the end of the day, what I have to
deal with is a DOC or DOCX file with semantic comments (that are not
understood by most other tools), no matter where or how I start.

== TL;DR ==
What I'd like is to solve for the missing input formats in e.g. Pandoc. It
does not support RTF, DOC, or DOCX, but supports HTML, which Word does not
output cleanly. Either way, it's something I have had in my mind for some
time, but too busy to investigate or ask around methodically. Getting an
idea of the demand for a solution in this case could force me to invest the

Inspiration: http://gio.act.gov.au/2013/03/13/document-conversion-markdown/


Reply via email to