Ray Rashif <schivmeis...@gmail.com> writes:

> 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

I think to start a wiki page to outline a possible GSoC 2014 project
would be a good idea.

>> 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).

Certainly I would be interested in having this info, as I am again have
to compile documents together with word users - and a collection of
strategies how to handle this would be very much welcome.

> 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.

This boils down to what I discussed during the thread of LaTeX roundtrip
(unfortunately, I don't have it at hand, but can search if yu can't find
it): having one subset of features for roundtrips to other formats which
are supported. This should be done in a way, so that they can easiliy be
extended, and the general framework (definition and identification of
features supported) should be independent of the other partner in the
roundtrip (docx, latex, odt, ...). In addition, metadata about
non-converted features could be stored, and re-applied / added on the
re-import of the roundtrip.

Furthermore, there should also be an exporter to he format, which tries
to export the document as accurate as possible, but not usable for roundtrips.

> 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.

Exactly - that is what is needed for the roundtrip. 



> == 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
> time.
> Inspiration: http://gio.act.gov.au/2013/03/13/document-conversion-markdown/
> --
> GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1

Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology, 
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :       +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:       +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax :       +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):    +49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:      rai...@krugs.de

Skype:      RMkrug

Reply via email to