Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Wilfried]

stefano franchi wrote:
 
 I agree, in principle and on practical grounds too (see the
 possibility to leverage tex4ht). However, it is true that the eventual
 users of the Lyx--Doc converter (and of the roundtrip tool) will
 overwhelmingly be Word users, not LibreOffice users. Before we choose
 to go down the ODF path I would very much like to test whether the
 core features we are interested in---semantic marking, footnotes,
 math,  changes, notes and possibly frames---can survive the
 ODF--Word round trip.
 
 Is anyone with Word willing to carry out the test? I can provide a
 test document in ODF format.
 

If noone else raises his / her hand, I would. 
(I am principally interested in LaTeX - Word conversions.)
-- 
Wilfried Hennings

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Rainer M Krug]

stefano franchi stefano.fran...@gmail.com writes:

 On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Cyrille Artho c.ar...@aist.go.jp wrote:
 I agree. A user who is interested in using LyX is also going to install
 LibreOffice (if it's not already installed). Furthermore, we can't expect
 student participants to pay hundreds of dollars just to be able to test the
 converter.


 Richard Heck wrote:

 On 02/24/2014 06:11 PM, stefano franchi wrote:

 On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Georg Baum
 georg.b...@post.rwth-aachen.de wrote:

 Rainer M Krug wrote:

 As far as I know, doc is a non documented binary format - so I would
 definitely not go there.

 AFAIK there are many details known about .doc, but this is a dead
 format,
 and any round trip that uses it will be obsolete rather sooner than
 later.


 I agree completely. Let's avoid dead formats and focus on the choice
 Word vs. ODF


 I would have thought it was in the spirit of the project to focus on ODF.
 Word reads and writes it, and anyone who's a Word-user can download and
 use
 Libre Office for free without much loss.



 I agree, in principle and on practical grounds too (see the
 possibility to leverage tex4ht). However, it is true that the eventual
 users of the Lyx--Doc converter (and of the roundtrip tool) will
 overwhelmingly be Word users, not LibreOffice users. Before we choose
 to go down the ODF path I would very much like to test whether the
 core features we are interested in---semantic marking, footnotes,
 math,  changes, notes and possibly frames---can survive the
 ODF--Word round trip.

 Is anyone with Word willing to carry out the test? I can provide a
 test document in ODF format.

I can test it on a Mac. If you send me the document privately, I can 

1) save it in LibreOffice 4.1.2.3 as .docx
2) open it in MS Word:Mac 2011 14.3.9
3) compare the documents
4) do a minor edit (if you have any specific edits I shoud do, please
let me know)
5) save it again
6) open it in LibreOffice

I will also create pdfs of each stage.

We have to keep in mind, that it seems that at least MS Office 2011 on
a Mac *can not* read and write .odt files. If somebody using a newer
version of OS Office for Mac can confirm this?

Cheers,

Rainer



 S.

-- 
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


pgpMtpyTThwim.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Wilfried]

Rainer M Krug wrote:

 Wilfried wh...@gmx.de writes:
 
  stefano franchi wrote:
 
  On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Rainer M Krug rai...@krugs.de wrote:
   stefano franchi stefano.fran...@gmail.com writes:
  
  
   2. Whether to target Microsoft's Word XML format or the Open Document
   Format (similarly XML-based)
  
   I would strongly argue for the Microsoft Word XML, as each conversion
   creates problems and inconsistencies. This said, if the conversion from
   MS Word XML to ODF and back can be done without causing problems in the
   roundtrip (i.e. the round-trip would then be lyx - ODF XML - MS XML -
   ODF XML - lyx)I would argue for the more open format which can be used
   on more Operating systems.
  
  
  I have been told that, in its most recent versions, Microsoft Word can
  read ODF version = 1.2 directly. That is, it can open,
  edit, and save files in OpenOffice's native format. I have no means of
  checking this assertion, as I have no access to MS Word.
  Could anyone with such access give it a try?
 
  In principle, this is true.
  However OO (I tested with Apache OO 4.01) cannot save in the latest Word
  format (.docx), and saveing as MS .xml results in complete loss of the
  equations. 
 
 This is not true for Libre Office (4.1.2.3) on ac - I just tried, and a
 small formula in LibreOffice, saved as .odt, then saved as .docx
 (Microsoft Office 2007/2010 XML) resulted in a docx which could be
 opened in Word 2011 and the equation was there. I=t could be edited and,
 when re-opened in LibreOffice, the edits were there.
 
  Round trip is best if saving to Word 97/2000/2003 .doc
  format.
 
 As far as I know, doc is a non documented binary format - so I would
 definitely not go there.
 
 
  Word supports 3 ways to write equations:
  The oldest one is the EQ field function, which is easy to convert but
  rarely used in practice.
  The next is using the Equation Editor (standard for up to Word 2000) or
  its mature brother MathType which both create MTEF objects.
  The latest are Word 2007 and up equations (with a different object type
  OMML).
  And OpenOffice has its own equation editor which creates another object
  type, which cannot be converted to any of Word's equation types, at
  least not by Word nor by MathType (up to 6.7.a - current version is
  6.9). However, Mathtype can convert to and from MathML and LaTeX.
  The newer Word equation object can only be converted to the older object
  type by MathType (AFAIK).
 
 I can not comment on this.
 
 
  An OO document, containing an equation created in OO, saved as MS .doc
  (Word 97/2000/2003) and opened in Word 2010 contains the equation but
  this equation is not editable in Word - for editing this equation one
  needs OpenOffice installed. At least after the round trip OO - .doc -
  Word - .doc - OO the equation is still editable in OO.
  And an equation created in Word is not editable in OO. Even worse, if
  one uses the newer (Word 2007 and up) equation format (which is default
  if one uses the .docx format), then saves as .doc, the newer equations
  are irreversibly converted to pictures.
 
  Hope that makes the problems more clear.
 
 As I stated above, I could create a document =in Libre office, including
 equation, save it as docx, open it in Word 2011, edit the formula, save
 it, open the document in LibreOffice, edits were there, and I could
 continue editing there. May be differences between OpenOffice and
 LibreOffice?

I comparedLibreOfficeandOpenOffice:

Save as .doc yesyes
Equation saved asMTEF, editable  OOmath, not editable
Roundtripno, stays MTEF  remains OOMath
 MTEF remains MTEF 

Save as .docxyesno
Equation saved asOMML, editable
Roundtripyes, back to OOMath
 MTEF remains MTEF 


Abbreviations:
OOMath = OpenOffice or LibreOffice Equation 
MTEF   = Microsoft Equation Editor (up to Word 2003) or MathType
OMML   = Microsoft Equation (Word 2007 and up)

So, roundtrip is best with 
LibreOffice saving as .docx and opening from .docx

-- 
Wilfried Hennings

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Rainer M Krug]

Wilfried wh...@gmx.de writes:

 Rainer M Krug wrote:

 Wilfried wh...@gmx.de writes:
 
  stefano franchi wrote:
 
  On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Rainer M Krug rai...@krugs.de wrote:
   stefano franchi stefano.fran...@gmail.com writes:
  
  
   2. Whether to target Microsoft's Word XML format or the Open Document
   Format (similarly XML-based)
  
   I would strongly argue for the Microsoft Word XML, as each conversion
   creates problems and inconsistencies. This said, if the conversion from
   MS Word XML to ODF and back can be done without causing problems in the
   roundtrip (i.e. the round-trip would then be lyx - ODF XML - MS XML -
   ODF XML - lyx)I would argue for the more open format which can be used
   on more Operating systems.
  
  
  I have been told that, in its most recent versions, Microsoft Word can
  read ODF version = 1.2 directly. That is, it can open,
  edit, and save files in OpenOffice's native format. I have no means of
  checking this assertion, as I have no access to MS Word.
  Could anyone with such access give it a try?
 
  In principle, this is true.
  However OO (I tested with Apache OO 4.01) cannot save in the latest Word
  format (.docx), and saveing as MS .xml results in complete loss of the
  equations. 
 
 This is not true for Libre Office (4.1.2.3) on ac - I just tried, and a
 small formula in LibreOffice, saved as .odt, then saved as .docx
 (Microsoft Office 2007/2010 XML) resulted in a docx which could be
 opened in Word 2011 and the equation was there. I=t could be edited and,
 when re-opened in LibreOffice, the edits were there.
 
  Round trip is best if saving to Word 97/2000/2003 .doc
  format.
 
 As far as I know, doc is a non documented binary format - so I would
 definitely not go there.
 
 
  Word supports 3 ways to write equations:
  The oldest one is the EQ field function, which is easy to convert but
  rarely used in practice.
  The next is using the Equation Editor (standard for up to Word 2000) or
  its mature brother MathType which both create MTEF objects.
  The latest are Word 2007 and up equations (with a different object type
  OMML).
  And OpenOffice has its own equation editor which creates another object
  type, which cannot be converted to any of Word's equation types, at
  least not by Word nor by MathType (up to 6.7.a - current version is
  6.9). However, Mathtype can convert to and from MathML and LaTeX.
  The newer Word equation object can only be converted to the older object
  type by MathType (AFAIK).
 
 I can not comment on this.
 
 
  An OO document, containing an equation created in OO, saved as MS .doc
  (Word 97/2000/2003) and opened in Word 2010 contains the equation but
  this equation is not editable in Word - for editing this equation one
  needs OpenOffice installed. At least after the round trip OO - .doc -
  Word - .doc - OO the equation is still editable in OO.
  And an equation created in Word is not editable in OO. Even worse, if
  one uses the newer (Word 2007 and up) equation format (which is default
  if one uses the .docx format), then saves as .doc, the newer equations
  are irreversibly converted to pictures.
 
  Hope that makes the problems more clear.
 
 As I stated above, I could create a document =in Libre office, including
 equation, save it as docx, open it in Word 2011, edit the formula, save
 it, open the document in LibreOffice, edits were there, and I could
 continue editing there. May be differences between OpenOffice and
 LibreOffice?

 I comparedLibreOfficeandOpenOffice:

 Save as .doc yesyes
 Equation saved asMTEF, editable  OOmath, not editable
 Roundtripno, stays MTEF  remains OOMath
  MTEF remains MTEF 

 Save as .docxyesno
 Equation saved asOMML, editable
 Roundtripyes, back to OOMath
  MTEF remains MTEF 


 Abbreviations:
 OOMath = OpenOffice or LibreOffice Equation 
 MTEF   = Microsoft Equation Editor (up to Word 2003) or MathType
 OMML   = Microsoft Equation (Word 2007 and up)

 So, roundtrip is best with 
 LibreOffice saving as .docx and opening from .docx

Unless we want to stay open, and use odt format, which then can be
converted to docx using LibreOffice, but as Stefano pointed out, the
users on the other side will most likely be using MS Word, which is
particularly true for editors of Journals. So unless the conversion odt
- can be done in the background and it is lossless, I would go with
docx as the target format.

Cheers,

Rainer

-- 
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:  

Re: GSOC 2014 -- next steps

[Rainer M Krug]

stefano franchi stefano.fran...@gmail.com writes:

 Dear Lyx developers,

 as you know, we have been accepted into GSOC 2014. The next step is to
 get ready to evaluate students' proposal, which will start coming in
 about a week, with the usual flurry as we get close to the deadline
 (March 21st).

 I would appreciate if all the developers who participated in GSOC last
 year could register again as mentors on google-melange [1], *even if
 you do not plan to be an active mentor* this year. Registration on
 melange will give you access to the proposals and will let you assess
 them.

 Notice that you may have to reregister with google-melange, as te app
 seems to have deleted usernames from last year. Both Liviu and I had
 to do so. Once you are properly logged in, go to the Dashboard and
 click on connect with organizations requesting the role of mentor.
 Liviu or I will have to approve your request, after which you will
 recive a confirmation and you'll be ready to roll.

Just to inform you, I have registered as a co-mentor for the roundtrip
project. I will not be able to provide programming mentoring as I have
no knowledge in the internals of LyX, but I would be very much
interested to be involve=d in the discussion about the direction and
outline of the roundtrip, as I was one of the initial authors ot=f the proposal.

Cheers,

Rainer


 Thanks!

 Stefano


 [1] https://google-melange.appspot.com/gsoc/events/google/gsoc2014

-- 
Rainer M. Krug

email: RMKrugatgmaildotcom


pgptDs5d5BXe_.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GSOC 2014 -- next steps

[Cyrille Artho]

For those still signing up; I got a lot of error messages first in one
browser session where I was already logged in to two Google accounts.
Nothing I tried let me go further.

Now I tried again at home and it seems the profile was created after
all; I could continue without a hitch...

So maybe you have to clear all cookies, close the browser, etc. to make
things work. Have you tried turning it off and on again? seems to be
the mantra with Google's web services :-)


Rainer M Krug wrote:
 stefano franchi stefano.fran...@gmail.com writes:
 
 Dear Lyx developers,

 as you know, we have been accepted into GSOC 2014. The next step is to
 get ready to evaluate students' proposal, which will start coming in
 about a week, with the usual flurry as we get close to the deadline
 (March 21st).

 I would appreciate if all the developers who participated in GSOC last
 year could register again as mentors on google-melange [1], *even if
 you do not plan to be an active mentor* this year. Registration on
 melange will give you access to the proposals and will let you assess
 them.

 Notice that you may have to reregister with google-melange, as te app
 seems to have deleted usernames from last year. Both Liviu and I had
 to do so. Once you are properly logged in, go to the Dashboard and
 click on connect with organizations requesting the role of mentor.
 Liviu or I will have to approve your request, after which you will
 recive a confirmation and you'll be ready to roll.
 
 Just to inform you, I have registered as a co-mentor for the roundtrip
 project. I will not be able to provide programming mentoring as I have
 no knowledge in the internals of LyX, but I would be very much
 interested to be involve=d in the discussion about the direction and
 outline of the roundtrip, as I was one of the initial authors ot=f the 
 proposal.
 
 Cheers,
 
 Rainer
 

 Thanks!

 Stefano


 [1] https://google-melange.appspot.com/gsoc/events/google/gsoc2014
 

-- 
Regards,
Cyrille Artho - http://artho.com/
Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot,
are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.
-- George Gordon Noel Byron

Contribution license

[Prannoy Pilligundla]

I hereby license my contributions to LyX under the General Public
License, Version 2 or any later version

Prannoy Pilligundla

ᐧ

Re: Diff for Ticket #8816

[Prannoy Pilligundla]

ᐧ

There was one whitespace error in the LyXRC.h file.I am sorry for the
carelessness

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:

 Prannoy Pilligundla wrote:
  index ce78d29..4ffe7d6 100644
  --- a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp
  +++ b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp
  @@ -3879,7 +3879,9 @@ void GuiView::toggleFullScreen()
setContentsMargins(-2, -2, -2, -2);
saveLayout();
setWindowState(windowState() ^ Qt::WindowFullScreen);
  - statusBar()-hide();
  + //statusBar()-hide();

 this line can be completely kicked out


Do i have to send an other patch with this change?

Re: GSOC 2014 -- next steps

[Liviu Andronic]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Cyrille Artho c.ar...@aist.go.jp wrote:
 For those still signing up; I got a lot of error messages first in one
 browser session where I was already logged in to two Google accounts.
 Nothing I tried let me go further.

 Now I tried again at home and it seems the profile was created after
 all; I could continue without a hitch...

 So maybe you have to clear all cookies, close the browser, etc. to make
 things work. Have you tried turning it off and on again? seems to be
 the mantra with Google's web services :-)

I think sometimes you need to make sure that you click the 'login'
button on the left side-bar in Melange. Sometimes you even need to
login in using https://, even if you've already logged in using
http:// . Go figure!

Liviu



 Rainer M Krug wrote:
 stefano franchi stefano.fran...@gmail.com writes:

 Dear Lyx developers,

 as you know, we have been accepted into GSOC 2014. The next step is to
 get ready to evaluate students' proposal, which will start coming in
 about a week, with the usual flurry as we get close to the deadline
 (March 21st).

 I would appreciate if all the developers who participated in GSOC last
 year could register again as mentors on google-melange [1], *even if
 you do not plan to be an active mentor* this year. Registration on
 melange will give you access to the proposals and will let you assess
 them.

 Notice that you may have to reregister with google-melange, as te app
 seems to have deleted usernames from last year. Both Liviu and I had
 to do so. Once you are properly logged in, go to the Dashboard and
 click on connect with organizations requesting the role of mentor.
 Liviu or I will have to approve your request, after which you will
 recive a confirmation and you'll be ready to roll.

 Just to inform you, I have registered as a co-mentor for the roundtrip
 project. I will not be able to provide programming mentoring as I have
 no knowledge in the internals of LyX, but I would be very much
 interested to be involve=d in the discussion about the direction and
 outline of the roundtrip, as I was one of the initial authors ot=f the 
 proposal.

 Cheers,

 Rainer


 Thanks!

 Stefano


 [1] https://google-melange.appspot.com/gsoc/events/google/gsoc2014


 --
 Regards,
 Cyrille Artho - http://artho.com/
 Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot,
 are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.
 -- George Gordon Noel Byron



-- 
Do you know how to read?
http://www.alienetworks.com/srtest.cfm
http://goodies.xfce.org/projects/applications/xfce4-dict#speed-reader
Do you know how to write?
http://garbl.home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/e.htm#e-mail

add marginefigure

[hatim]

Dear 
i hope you add marginefigure and marginetable by default like tufte-book.
now marginenote only default.

regards

Re: unofficial gnuplot external template?

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:
 Scott Kostyshak wrote:
 I think that there is no official gnuplot external template because of
 security reasons,

 Noble goal already butchered by knitr support.

but is there an unofficial one floating around?

 I remember Koji Yokota had it in his hands, you might want to contact him.

Koji sent me the files (the Python script and external_templates
addition) and instructions.

 I would have no problem to add it into tarball even if not recognized by 
 default installation.

A search suggests that there would be some demand:

http://www.gauhati.ac.in/files/uploaded_files/file510.pdf
http://projectedneuralactivity.blogspot.com/2012/05/using-gnuplot-with-lyx.html
http://www.ub.edu/stat/docencia/lyx/maxima.pdf
http://jack-kelly.com/gnuplot

Scott

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Richard Heck]

It looks to me as if ODT -- docx is OK via Libre Office. And if it's
editors of journals, etc, then one way is good enough, no?

R
On Feb 25, 2014 4:15 AM, Rainer M Krug rai...@krugs.de wrote:

 Wilfried wh...@gmx.de writes:

  Rainer M Krug wrote:
 
  Wilfried wh...@gmx.de writes:
 
   stefano franchi wrote:
  
   On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Rainer M Krug rai...@krugs.de
 wrote:
stefano franchi stefano.fran...@gmail.com writes:
   
  
2. Whether to target Microsoft's Word XML format or the Open
 Document
Format (similarly XML-based)
   
I would strongly argue for the Microsoft Word XML, as each
 conversion
creates problems and inconsistencies. This said, if the conversion
 from
MS Word XML to ODF and back can be done without causing problems
 in the
roundtrip (i.e. the round-trip would then be lyx - ODF XML - MS
 XML -
ODF XML - lyx)I would argue for the more open format which can
 be used
on more Operating systems.
   
  
   I have been told that, in its most recent versions, Microsoft Word
 can
   read ODF version = 1.2 directly. That is, it can open,
   edit, and save files in OpenOffice's native format. I have no means
 of
   checking this assertion, as I have no access to MS Word.
   Could anyone with such access give it a try?
  
   In principle, this is true.
   However OO (I tested with Apache OO 4.01) cannot save in the latest
 Word
   format (.docx), and saveing as MS .xml results in complete loss of the
   equations.
 
  This is not true for Libre Office (4.1.2.3) on ac - I just tried, and a
  small formula in LibreOffice, saved as .odt, then saved as .docx
  (Microsoft Office 2007/2010 XML) resulted in a docx which could be
  opened in Word 2011 and the equation was there. I=t could be edited and,
  when re-opened in LibreOffice, the edits were there.
 
   Round trip is best if saving to Word 97/2000/2003 .doc
   format.
 
  As far as I know, doc is a non documented binary format - so I would
  definitely not go there.
 
  
   Word supports 3 ways to write equations:
   The oldest one is the EQ field function, which is easy to convert but
   rarely used in practice.
   The next is using the Equation Editor (standard for up to Word 2000)
 or
   its mature brother MathType which both create MTEF objects.
   The latest are Word 2007 and up equations (with a different object
 type
   OMML).
   And OpenOffice has its own equation editor which creates another
 object
   type, which cannot be converted to any of Word's equation types, at
   least not by Word nor by MathType (up to 6.7.a - current version is
   6.9). However, Mathtype can convert to and from MathML and LaTeX.
   The newer Word equation object can only be converted to the older
 object
   type by MathType (AFAIK).
 
  I can not comment on this.
 
  
   An OO document, containing an equation created in OO, saved as MS .doc
   (Word 97/2000/2003) and opened in Word 2010 contains the equation but
   this equation is not editable in Word - for editing this equation one
   needs OpenOffice installed. At least after the round trip OO - .doc
 -
   Word - .doc - OO the equation is still editable in OO.
   And an equation created in Word is not editable in OO. Even worse, if
   one uses the newer (Word 2007 and up) equation format (which is
 default
   if one uses the .docx format), then saves as .doc, the newer equations
   are irreversibly converted to pictures.
  
   Hope that makes the problems more clear.
 
  As I stated above, I could create a document =in Libre office, including
  equation, save it as docx, open it in Word 2011, edit the formula, save
  it, open the document in LibreOffice, edits were there, and I could
  continue editing there. May be differences between OpenOffice and
  LibreOffice?
 
  I comparedLibreOfficeandOpenOffice:
 
  Save as .doc yesyes
  Equation saved asMTEF, editable  OOmath, not editable
  Roundtripno, stays MTEF  remains OOMath
   MTEF remains MTEF
 
  Save as .docxyesno
  Equation saved asOMML, editable
  Roundtripyes, back to OOMath
   MTEF remains MTEF
 
 
  Abbreviations:
  OOMath = OpenOffice or LibreOffice Equation
  MTEF   = Microsoft Equation Editor (up to Word 2003) or MathType
  OMML   = Microsoft Equation (Word 2007 and up)
 
  So, roundtrip is best with
  LibreOffice saving as .docx and opening from .docx

 Unless we want to stay open, and use odt format, which then can be
 converted to docx using LibreOffice, but as Stefano pointed out, the
 users on the other side will most likely be using MS Word, which is
 particularly true for editors of Journals. So unless the conversion odt
 - can be done in the background and it is lossless, I would go with
 docx as the target format.

 Cheers,

 Rainer

 --
 Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation
 

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[stefano franchi]

I am preparing a LyX document with all the features listed in our GSOC
2014 page. I will transfer it to ODF with tex4ht, possibly fix it
manually,  and then will circulate it on list for ODF/Docx tests.

Here is what I am including:

sections, headers, ...
lists
emphasis, bold, ...
comments
track changes
tables and figures
footnotes
bibliographic references
math
cross-references
tracked changes

It will have one section per item, do we can focus the tests on one
feature at a time, and perhaps split the document in mini-docs an have
a series of unit tests of sorts.


Question:

1. Is the list comprehensive enough? Too comprehensive?

2. For the Math: anyone having favorite equations / math constructs
that represent a sort of baseline case that would be desired and
other cases that would be the optimum. I am thinking of the
complicated things I sometimes here you guys discussing on the list
and which I never use


S.


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Richard Heck rgh...@lyx.org wrote:
 It looks to me as if ODT -- docx is OK via Libre Office. And if it's
 editors of journals, etc, then one way is good enough, no?

 R

 On Feb 25, 2014 4:15 AM, Rainer M Krug rai...@krugs.de wrote:

 Wilfried wh...@gmx.de writes:

  Rainer M Krug wrote:
 
  Wilfried wh...@gmx.de writes:
 
   stefano franchi wrote:
  
   On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Rainer M Krug rai...@krugs.de
   wrote:
stefano franchi stefano.fran...@gmail.com writes:
   
  
2. Whether to target Microsoft's Word XML format or the Open
Document
Format (similarly XML-based)
   
I would strongly argue for the Microsoft Word XML, as each
conversion
creates problems and inconsistencies. This said, if the conversion
from
MS Word XML to ODF and back can be done without causing problems
in the
roundtrip (i.e. the round-trip would then be lyx - ODF XML - MS
XML -
ODF XML - lyx)I would argue for the more open format which can
be used
on more Operating systems.
   
  
   I have been told that, in its most recent versions, Microsoft Word
   can
   read ODF version = 1.2 directly. That is, it can open,
   edit, and save files in OpenOffice's native format. I have no means
   of
   checking this assertion, as I have no access to MS Word.
   Could anyone with such access give it a try?
  
   In principle, this is true.
   However OO (I tested with Apache OO 4.01) cannot save in the latest
   Word
   format (.docx), and saveing as MS .xml results in complete loss of
   the
   equations.
 
  This is not true for Libre Office (4.1.2.3) on ac - I just tried, and a
  small formula in LibreOffice, saved as .odt, then saved as .docx
  (Microsoft Office 2007/2010 XML) resulted in a docx which could be
  opened in Word 2011 and the equation was there. I=t could be edited
  and,
  when re-opened in LibreOffice, the edits were there.
 
   Round trip is best if saving to Word 97/2000/2003 .doc
   format.
 
  As far as I know, doc is a non documented binary format - so I would
  definitely not go there.
 
  
   Word supports 3 ways to write equations:
   The oldest one is the EQ field function, which is easy to convert but
   rarely used in practice.
   The next is using the Equation Editor (standard for up to Word 2000)
   or
   its mature brother MathType which both create MTEF objects.
   The latest are Word 2007 and up equations (with a different object
   type
   OMML).
   And OpenOffice has its own equation editor which creates another
   object
   type, which cannot be converted to any of Word's equation types, at
   least not by Word nor by MathType (up to 6.7.a - current version is
   6.9). However, Mathtype can convert to and from MathML and LaTeX.
   The newer Word equation object can only be converted to the older
   object
   type by MathType (AFAIK).
 
  I can not comment on this.
 
  
   An OO document, containing an equation created in OO, saved as MS
   .doc
   (Word 97/2000/2003) and opened in Word 2010 contains the equation but
   this equation is not editable in Word - for editing this equation one
   needs OpenOffice installed. At least after the round trip OO - .doc
   -
   Word - .doc - OO the equation is still editable in OO.
   And an equation created in Word is not editable in OO. Even worse, if
   one uses the newer (Word 2007 and up) equation format (which is
   default
   if one uses the .docx format), then saves as .doc, the newer
   equations
   are irreversibly converted to pictures.
  
   Hope that makes the problems more clear.
 
  As I stated above, I could create a document =in Libre office,
  including
  equation, save it as docx, open it in Word 2011, edit the formula, save
  it, open the document in LibreOffice, edits were there, and I could
  continue editing there. May be differences between OpenOffice and
  LibreOffice?
 
  I comparedLibreOfficeandOpenOffice:
 
  Save as .doc yesyes
  Equation saved asMTEF, editable  

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Rainer M Krug]

stefano franchi stefano.fran...@gmail.com writes:

 I am preparing a LyX document with all the features listed in our GSOC
 2014 page. I will transfer it to ODF with tex4ht, possibly fix it
 manually,  and then will circulate it on list for ODF/Docx tests.

I think this is a brilliant idea - ths could then become the benchmark
for the complete round-trip.


 Here is what I am including:

 sections, headers, ...
 lists
 emphasis, bold, ...
 comments
 track changes
 tables and figures
 footnotes
 bibliographic references
 math
 cross-references
 tracked changes

 It will have one section per item, do we can focus the tests on one
 feature at a time, and perhaps split the document in mini-docs an have
 a series of unit tests of sorts.


 Question:

 1. Is the list comprehensive enough? Too comprehensive?

We should possibly prioritize some aspects which are more essential then
others. There will very likely be some different views on e.g. math and
footnotes, but I assume that there are some we can agree on. My list
would be, in descending order of importance:

1) sections, headers, ...
2) lists
3) emphasis, bold, ...
4) comments
5) track changes
6) tables and figures
7) bibliographic references
8) tables
9) figures
10) math, footnotes  cross-references


 2. For the Math: anyone having favorite equations / math constructs
 that represent a sort of baseline case that would be desired and
 other cases that would be the optimum. I am thinking of the
 complicated things I sometimes here you guys discussing on the list
 and which I never use

Not from my side - sorry. I prefer simple maths.

Looking forward to the document,

Rainer



 S.


 On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Richard Heck rgh...@lyx.org wrote:
 It looks to me as if ODT -- docx is OK via Libre Office. And if it's
 editors of journals, etc, then one way is good enough, no?

 R

 On Feb 25, 2014 4:15 AM, Rainer M Krug rai...@krugs.de wrote:

 Wilfried wh...@gmx.de writes:

  Rainer M Krug wrote:
 
  Wilfried wh...@gmx.de writes:
 
   stefano franchi wrote:
  
   On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Rainer M Krug rai...@krugs.de
   wrote:
stefano franchi stefano.fran...@gmail.com writes:
   
  
2. Whether to target Microsoft's Word XML format or the Open
Document
Format (similarly XML-based)
   
I would strongly argue for the Microsoft Word XML, as each
conversion
creates problems and inconsistencies. This said, if the conversion
from
MS Word XML to ODF and back can be done without causing problems
in the
roundtrip (i.e. the round-trip would then be lyx - ODF XML - MS
XML -
ODF XML - lyx)I would argue for the more open format which can
be used
on more Operating systems.
   
  
   I have been told that, in its most recent versions, Microsoft Word
   can
   read ODF version = 1.2 directly. That is, it can open,
   edit, and save files in OpenOffice's native format. I have no means
   of
   checking this assertion, as I have no access to MS Word.
   Could anyone with such access give it a try?
  
   In principle, this is true.
   However OO (I tested with Apache OO 4.01) cannot save in the latest
   Word
   format (.docx), and saveing as MS .xml results in complete loss of
   the
   equations.
 
  This is not true for Libre Office (4.1.2.3) on ac - I just tried, and a
  small formula in LibreOffice, saved as .odt, then saved as .docx
  (Microsoft Office 2007/2010 XML) resulted in a docx which could be
  opened in Word 2011 and the equation was there. I=t could be edited
  and,
  when re-opened in LibreOffice, the edits were there.
 
   Round trip is best if saving to Word 97/2000/2003 .doc
   format.
 
  As far as I know, doc is a non documented binary format - so I would
  definitely not go there.
 
  
   Word supports 3 ways to write equations:
   The oldest one is the EQ field function, which is easy to convert but
   rarely used in practice.
   The next is using the Equation Editor (standard for up to Word 2000)
   or
   its mature brother MathType which both create MTEF objects.
   The latest are Word 2007 and up equations (with a different object
   type
   OMML).
   And OpenOffice has its own equation editor which creates another
   object
   type, which cannot be converted to any of Word's equation types, at
   least not by Word nor by MathType (up to 6.7.a - current version is
   6.9). However, Mathtype can convert to and from MathML and LaTeX.
   The newer Word equation object can only be converted to the older
   object
   type by MathType (AFAIK).
 
  I can not comment on this.
 
  
   An OO document, containing an equation created in OO, saved as MS
   .doc
   (Word 97/2000/2003) and opened in Word 2010 contains the equation but
   this equation is not editable in Word - for editing this equation one
   needs OpenOffice installed. At least after the round trip OO - .doc
   -
   Word - .doc - OO the equation is still editable in OO.
   And an equation created in Word is not editable in 

Re: Diff for Ticket #8816

[Prannoy Pilligundla]

I did send my GPL mail and i removed the unwanted comment that Pavel had
pointed out.I am attaching both the patches

Thanks and Regards
Prannoy Pilligundla
ᐧ


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Prannoy Pilligundla prannoy.b...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 ᐧ

 There was one whitespace error in the LyXRC.h file.I am sorry for the
 carelessness

 On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:

 Prannoy Pilligundla wrote:
  index ce78d29..4ffe7d6 100644
  --- a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp
  +++ b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp
  @@ -3879,7 +3879,9 @@ void GuiView::toggleFullScreen()
setContentsMargins(-2, -2, -2, -2);
saveLayout();
setWindowState(windowState() ^ Qt::WindowFullScreen);
  - statusBar()-hide();
  + //statusBar()-hide();

 this line can be completely kicked out


 Do i have to send an other patch with this change?


From ee2fb5b24ad03bb31c27dc09e352dbec3eb55951 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Prannoy Pilligundla prannoyp.1...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:29:24 +0530
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Fix Ticket #8816

---
 src/LyXRC.cpp  |   14 ++
 src/LyXRC.h|3 +++
 src/frontends/qt4/GuiPrefs.cpp |4 
 src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp  |4 +++-
 src/frontends/qt4/ui/PrefEditUi.ui |7 +++
 5 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/LyXRC.cpp b/src/LyXRC.cpp
index c0a6467..8b186f9 100644
--- a/src/LyXRC.cpp
+++ b/src/LyXRC.cpp
@@ -110,6 +110,7 @@ LexerKeyword lyxrcTags[] = {
 	{ \\fullscreen_limit, LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_LIMIT },
 	{ \\fullscreen_menubar, LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_MENUBAR },
 	{ \\fullscreen_scrollbar, LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_SCROLLBAR },
+{ \\fullscreen_statusbar, LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_STATUSBAR },
 	{ \\fullscreen_tabbar, LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_TABBAR },
 	{ \\fullscreen_toolbars, LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_TOOLBARS },
 	{ \\fullscreen_width, LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_WIDTH },
@@ -1237,6 +1238,9 @@ LyXRC::ReturnValues LyXRC::read(Lexer  lexrc, bool check_format)
 		case RC_FULL_SCREEN_SCROLLBAR:
 			lexrc  full_screen_scrollbar;
 			break;
+case RC_FULL_SCREEN_STATUSBAR:
+			lexrc  full_screen_statusbar;
+			break;
 		case RC_FULL_SCREEN_TABBAR:
 			lexrc  full_screen_tabbar;
 			break;
@@ -1945,6 +1949,15 @@ void LyXRC::write(ostream  os, bool ignore_system_lyxrc, string const  name) c
 		}
 		if (tag != RC_LAST)
 			break;
+case RC_FULL_SCREEN_STATUSBAR:
+		if (ignore_system_lyxrc ||
+		full_screen_statusbar != system_lyxrc.full_screen_statusbar) {
+			os  \\fullscreen_statusbar 
+			convertstring(full_screen_statusbar)
+			'\n';
+		}
+		if (tag != RC_LAST)
+			break;
 	case RC_FULL_SCREEN_TABBAR:
 		if (ignore_system_lyxrc ||
 		full_screen_tabbar != system_lyxrc.full_screen_tabbar) {
@@ -3061,6 +3074,7 @@ void actOnUpdatedPrefs(LyXRC const  lyxrc_orig, LyXRC const  lyxrc_new)
 	case LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_LIMIT:
 	case LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_SCROLLBAR:
 	case LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_MENUBAR:
+case LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_STATUSBAR:
 	case LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_TABBAR:
 	case LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_TOOLBARS:
 	case LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_WIDTH:
diff --git a/src/LyXRC.h b/src/LyXRC.h
index 94914cc..9a45f93 100644
--- a/src/LyXRC.h
+++ b/src/LyXRC.h
@@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ public:
 		RC_FORWARD_SEARCH_PDF,
 		RC_FULL_SCREEN_LIMIT,
 		RC_FULL_SCREEN_SCROLLBAR,
+RC_FULL_SCREEN_STATUSBAR,
 		RC_FULL_SCREEN_TABBAR,
 		RC_FULL_SCREEN_MENUBAR,
 		RC_FULL_SCREEN_TOOLBARS,
@@ -499,6 +500,8 @@ public:
 	bool full_screen_tabbar;
 	/// Toggle menubar in fullscreen mode?
 	bool full_screen_menubar;
+	///Toggle statusbar in fullscreen mode?
+bool full_screen_statusbar;
 	/// Limit the text width?
 	bool full_screen_limit;
 	/// Width of limited screen (in pixels) in fullscreen mode
diff --git a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiPrefs.cpp b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiPrefs.cpp
index 8686690..feebf76 100644
--- a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiPrefs.cpp
+++ b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiPrefs.cpp
@@ -2723,6 +2723,8 @@ PrefEdit::PrefEdit(GuiPreferences * form)
 		this, SIGNAL(changed()));
 	connect(toggleScrollbarCB, SIGNAL(toggled(bool)),
 		this, SIGNAL(changed()));
+connect(toggleStatusbarCB, SIGNAL(toggled(bool)),
+		this, SIGNAL(changed()));
 	connect(toggleToolbarsCB, SIGNAL(toggled(bool)),
 		this, SIGNAL(changed()));
 }
@@ -2743,6 +2745,7 @@ void PrefEdit::apply(LyXRC  rc) const
 	rc.cursor_width = cursorWidthSB-value();
 	rc.full_screen_toolbars = toggleToolbarsCB-isChecked();
 	rc.full_screen_scrollbar = toggleScrollbarCB-isChecked();
+rc.full_screen_statusbar = toggleStatusbarCB-isChecked();
 	rc.full_screen_tabbar = toggleTabbarCB-isChecked();
 	rc.full_screen_menubar = toggleMenubarCB-isChecked();
 	rc.full_screen_width = fullscreenWidthSB-value();
@@ -2760,6 +2763,7 @@ void PrefEdit::update(LyXRC const  rc)
 	macroEditStyleCO-setCurrentIndex(rc.macro_edit_style);
 	

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Richard Heck]

On 02/25/2014 12:13 PM, Rainer M Krug wrote:

stefano franchi stefano.fran...@gmail.com writes:


I am preparing a LyX document with all the features listed in our GSOC
2014 page. I will transfer it to ODF with tex4ht, possibly fix it
manually,  and then will circulate it on list for ODF/Docx tests.

I think this is a brilliant idea - ths could then become the benchmark
for the complete round-trip.


Here is what I am including:

sections, headers, ...
lists
emphasis, bold, ...
comments
track changes
tables and figures
footnotes
bibliographic references
math
cross-references
tracked changes

It will have one section per item, do we can focus the tests on one
feature at a time, and perhaps split the document in mini-docs an have
a series of unit tests of sorts.


Question:

1. Is the list comprehensive enough? Too comprehensive?

We should possibly prioritize some aspects which are more essential then
others. There will very likely be some different views on e.g. math and
footnotes, but I assume that there are some we can agree on. My list
would be, in descending order of importance:

1) sections, headers, ...
2) lists
3) emphasis, bold, ...
4) comments
5) track changes
6) tables and figures
7) bibliographic references
8) tables
9) figures
10) math, footnotes  cross-references


Tables and figures, and tables, and figures? ;-)

I guess I'd count math as not one thing. Dealing with the simple 
constructs is essential, and perhaps more complex constructs are less 
so. But it would at least be worth having, as part of the test suite, 
the full panoply of arrays and equation types.


Is it even possible to handle math macros in DOCX? I'd include them, 
because we'll have to do something with them, if only put them in 
comments so they can be recovered on re-import.


It's perhaps worth noting, somewhere, that we already know how to export 
MathML, though that may need tweaking for this purpose, and there are, 
of course, bugs in the current code.


Richard

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[stefano franchi]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Richard Heck rgh...@lyx.org wrote:
 On 02/25/2014 12:13 PM, Rainer M Krug wrote:

 stefano franchi stefano.fran...@gmail.com writes:

 I am preparing a LyX document with all the features listed in our GSOC
 2014 page. I will transfer it to ODF with tex4ht, possibly fix it
 manually,  and then will circulate it on list for ODF/Docx tests.

 I think this is a brilliant idea - ths could then become the benchmark
 for the complete round-trip.

 Here is what I am including:

 sections, headers, ...
 lists
 emphasis, bold, ...
 comments
 track changes
 tables and figures
 footnotes
 bibliographic references
 math
 cross-references
 tracked changes

 It will have one section per item, do we can focus the tests on one
 feature at a time, and perhaps split the document in mini-docs an have
 a series of unit tests of sorts.


 Question:

 1. Is the list comprehensive enough? Too comprehensive?

 We should possibly prioritize some aspects which are more essential then
 others. There will very likely be some different views on e.g. math and
 footnotes, but I assume that there are some we can agree on. My list
 would be, in descending order of importance:

 1) sections, headers, ...
 2) lists
 3) emphasis, bold, ...
 4) comments
 5) track changes
 6) tables and figures
 7) bibliographic references
 8) tables
 9) figures
 10) math, footnotes  cross-references


 Tables and figures, and tables, and figures? ;-)



Yeah, that was a cut and paste from the wiki, with my additions
appended. The current list is:

1. Lists
2. Sectioning environments
3. Headers and footers
4. Emphasis, bold, and other character styles
5. Comments and notes
6. Tracked changes
7. Tables and figures
8. Footnotes
9. Bibliographic references
10. Mathematical expressions
11. Cross-references
12. LateX generated text


It is not easy to write a document that keeps the various features
separate, though.
The main Sectioning environments are used through out the document.
Similarly for Headers and footers
For testing purposes it would be good to have documents with local
features only.  So perhaps it would be worth to have separate
documents for Headers and footers and Sectioning (and perhaps also
for Math, given the complexity of the issue). Converserly, all
headers/footers and sectioning would be eliminated from the other
document.

 I guess I'd count math as not one thing. Dealing with the simple
 constructs is essential, and perhaps more complex constructs are less so.
 But it would at least be worth having, as part of the test suite, the full
 panoply of arrays and equation types.

I hope someone could provide such a panoply. My use of math is very
limited and I have no real understanding of the range of issues
involved. I read the Math manual, but it is  organized with final
formatting in mind (and for good reasons). I guess we should abstract
from final formatting and focus on the overall features (i.e.
operator, decorators, semantic relevant math fonts (BlackBoard,
Fraktur, etc), and so on.
Help would be appreciate don the issue.


 Is it even possible to handle math macros in DOCX? I'd include them, because
 we'll have to do something with them, if only put them in comments so they
 can be recovered on re-import.

I have no clue about this. I am not even sure I understand what is the
point of a math macro, never having used them.
Again, help is appreciated.


 It's perhaps worth noting, somewhere, that we already know how to export
 MathML, though that may need tweaking for this purpose, and there are, of
 course, bugs in the current code.

Richard, since LyX stores Math expressions in LaTeX native code (I
believe), does this mean that our current LyX-to0-MathML code is
actually (or almost) doing a  LaTeX-to-MathML export?


Stefano


-- 
__
Stefano Franchi
Associate Research Professor
Department of Hispanic Studies Ph:   +1 (979) 845-2125
Texas AM University  Fax:  +1 (979) 845-6421
College Station, Texas, USA

stef...@tamu.edu
http://stefano.cleinias.org

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Wilfried]

stefano franchi wrote:

 I am preparing a LyX document with all the features listed in our GSOC
 2014 page. I will transfer it to ODF with tex4ht, possibly fix it
 manually,  and then will circulate it on list for ODF/Docx tests.
 
 Here is what I am including:
 
 sections, headers, ...
 lists
 emphasis, bold, ...
 comments
 track changes
 tables and figures
 footnotes
 bibliographic references
 math
 cross-references
 tracked changes
 
 It will have one section per item, do we can focus the tests on one
 feature at a time, and perhaps split the document in mini-docs an have
 a series of unit tests of sorts.
 
 
 Question:
 
 1. Is the list comprehensive enough? Too comprehensive?
 
 2. For the Math: anyone having favorite equations / math constructs
 that represent a sort of baseline case that would be desired and
 other cases that would be the optimum. I am thinking of the
 complicated things I sometimes here you guys discussing on the list
 and which I never use

Hello everyone,
as I am involved in the LaTeX - rtf converter, I know that we have at
least 2 LaTeX test files for checking the conversion of equations. The
test files are available at sourceforge (simplest: in the svn
repository):

http://sourceforge.net/p/latex2rtf/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/test/eqns.tex?format=raw

http://sourceforge.net/p/latex2rtf/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/test/eqns2.tex?format=raw

-- 
Wilfried Hennings

Re: add marginefigure

[PhilipPirrip]

i hope you add marginefigure and marginetable by default like tufte-book.
now marginenote only default.


Nothing prevents you from inserting a figure or a table in the margin note.

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[stefano franchi]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Wilfried wh...@gmx.de wrote:

 Hello everyone,
 as I am involved in the LaTeX - rtf converter, I know that we have at
 least 2 LaTeX test files for checking the conversion of equations. The
 test files are available at sourceforge (simplest: in the svn
 repository):

 http://sourceforge.net/p/latex2rtf/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/test/eqns.tex?format=raw

 http://sourceforge.net/p/latex2rtf/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/test/eqns2.tex?format=raw

Thanks Wilfried, this is great.

I tried importing the latex files into LyX (2.0.7) and compiling  to
pdf and everything seems ok. However, there are a few spots in the
imported LyX in which Latex code comes over untranslated. Could you,
or anyone else with a better understanding of LaTeX math, tell me if
the same effect can be reproduced with LyX only commands (i.e if the
Latex code is just a failure of the tex2lyx converter or if Latex is
using features not currently available in LyX)?

I append the two files for simplicity.


Cheers,

Stefano




-- 
__
Stefano Franchi
Associate Research Professor
Department of Hispanic Studies Ph:   +1 (979) 845-2125
Texas AM University  Fax:  +1 (979) 845-6421
College Station, Texas, USA

stef...@tamu.edu
http://stefano.cleinias.org


eqns.lyx
Description: application/lyx


eqns2.lyx
Description: application/lyx

Re: Diff for Ticket #8816

[Georg Baum]

Pavel Sanda wrote:

 Looks like you get it right.
 Seems even local enough to get into 2.1 unless others disagree.

+1


Georg

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[William Adams]

On Feb 25, 2014, at 11:03 AM, stefano franchi wrote:

 Is the list comprehensive enough?

No love for index entries?

William

-- 
William Adams
senior graphic designer
Fry Communications
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Georg Baum]

stefano franchi wrote:

 was this the text  you  are referring to?

Yes, thanks!


Georg

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Rainer M Krug]

William Adams will.ad...@frycomm.com writes:

 On Feb 25, 2014, at 11:03 AM, stefano franchi wrote:

 Is the list comprehensive enough?

 No love for index entries?

Not from my side - sorry.

Rainer


 William

-- 
Rainer M. Krug

email: RMKrugatgmaildotcom


pgplFvC5aAhzZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Georg Baum]

stefano franchi wrote:

 Richard, since LyX stores Math expressions in LaTeX native code (I
 believe), does this mean that our current LyX-to0-MathML code is
 actually (or almost) doing a  LaTeX-to-MathML export?

Well, the MathML export does not export from the LaTeX representation, but 
from the math insets, but if you need a LaTeX Math-MathML exporter you can 
easily wrap up a simple script that pastes the formula into an empty LyX 
document and then exports that as MathML. So, in some sense it is a LaTeX-
MathML export.


Georg

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Georg Baum]

Richard Heck wrote:

 Is it even possible to handle math macros in DOCX? I'd include them,
 because we'll have to do something with them, if only put them in
 comments so they can be recovered on re-import.

math macros are already complicated if you look only at LyX without any 
import/export. I'd rather keep them out of the project unless some very 
simple solution exists, this could be a real time killer.


Georg

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Georg Baum]

Richard Heck wrote:

 I would have thought it was in the spirit of the project to focus on
 ODF. Word reads and writes it, and anyone who's a Word-user can download
 and use Libre Office for free without much loss.

From what I have heard and seen we cannot assume that odt-docx is 
unproblematic. I don't know how word handles .odt (did not know that this is 
possible in newer versions), but both LibreOffice and OpenOffice definitely 
have problems with reading and writing some .docx files.
This needs to be tested carefully before we rely on such a decision.


Georg

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Georg Baum]

stefano franchi wrote:

 Thanks Wilfried, this is great.

Yes, I also think that is is a good mixture of stuff to test.

 I tried importing the latex files into LyX (2.0.7) and compiling  to
 pdf and everything seems ok. However, there are a few spots in the
 imported LyX in which Latex code comes over untranslated. Could you,
 or anyone else with a better understanding of LaTeX math, tell me if
 the same effect can be reproduced with LyX only commands (i.e if the
 Latex code is just a failure of the tex2lyx converter or if Latex is
 using features not currently available in LyX)?

I had a quick look, and I did not find any tex2lyx problem. LyX does not 
support \verb (this occurs a lot), and LyX mathed does neither support \hbox 
nor \notag. Unless I overlooked something the result is as good as it can 
get.


Georg

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[stefano franchi]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Georg Baum
georg.b...@post.rwth-aachen.de wrote:
 stefano franchi wrote:

 Thanks Wilfried, this is great.

 Yes, I also think that is is a good mixture of stuff to test.

 I tried importing the latex files into LyX (2.0.7) and compiling  to
 pdf and everything seems ok. However, there are a few spots in the
 imported LyX in which Latex code comes over untranslated. Could you,
 or anyone else with a better understanding of LaTeX math, tell me if
 the same effect can be reproduced with LyX only commands (i.e if the
 Latex code is just a failure of the tex2lyx converter or if Latex is
 using features not currently available in LyX)?

 I had a quick look, and I did not find any tex2lyx problem. LyX does not
 support \verb (this occurs a lot), and LyX mathed does neither support \hbox
 nor \notag. Unless I overlooked something the result is as good as it can
 get.




Wilfried, Georg,

should the test be a simple union of the two documents?  Or is
eqn2.tex simply using the same features (or possibly a subset) of
eqn.tex?
Sorry for the silly question, but it is difficult to judge the
complexity and kind of Latex Math constructs when you do not have
daily practice with them.

Stefano


-- 
__
Stefano Franchi
Associate Research Professor
Department of Hispanic Studies Ph:   +1 (979) 845-2125
Texas AM University  Fax:  +1 (979) 845-6421
College Station, Texas, USA

stef...@tamu.edu
http://stefano.cleinias.org

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[stefano franchi]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Rainer M Krug rai...@krugs.de wrote:
 William Adams will.ad...@frycomm.com writes:

 On Feb 25, 2014, at 11:03 AM, stefano franchi wrote:

 Is the list comprehensive enough?

 No love for index entries?

 Not from my side - sorry.


Index entries were supposed to be included into Latex generated content

Perhaps they should be a separate entry. However, indexing is always
the last---indeed often the very last step---before final formatting,
so it is reasonable to assume that it will be done after all
conversions (round-trip or not) are over: with xindy if final output
is pdflatex and with an equivalent tool is the final format is
doc/odf.


Do you guys agree?


Stefano

-- 
__
Stefano Franchi
Associate Research Professor
Department of Hispanic Studies Ph:   +1 (979) 845-2125
Texas AM University  Fax:  +1 (979) 845-6421
College Station, Texas, USA

stef...@tamu.edu
http://stefano.cleinias.org

first draft of Lyx2Word test document available

[stefano franchi]

I have completed a first draft of a test document for the Lyx2word
(and back) conversion. Since it needs additional files (bib, pdf, and
png), I created a small, public, git repo on bitbucket where you can
clone it form:

g...@bitbucket.org:sfranchi/lyxtowordandback.git

I have also added a pdf compiled file. Notice that the setup I have used is:

- class: memoir
- bibliography: biblatex + biber
- encoding: UTF8(xelatex)
- fonts: TeX Gyre suite (termes, heros,cursor), because of the wide
coverage and similarity to Times New Roman
- TeX engine: XeTeX

Please take a look and let me know what you think. I am sure that
there is a lot of room for improvements.

An odf version for Word/ODF compatibility  is coming soon.


Cheers,

Stefano

-- 
__
Stefano Franchi
Associate Research Professor
Department of Hispanic Studies Ph:   +1 (979) 845-2125
Texas AM University  Fax:  +1 (979) 845-6421
College Station, Texas, USA

stef...@tamu.edu
http://stefano.cleinias.org

Re: Diff for Ticket #8816

[Richard Heck]

On 02/25/2014 12:40 PM, Prannoy Pilligundla wrote:
I did send my GPL mail and i removed the unwanted comment that Pavel 
had pointed out.I am attaching both the patches


Committed. Thanks.

rh



Thanks and Regards
Prannoy Pilligundla
ᐧ


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Prannoy Pilligundla 
prannoy.b...@gmail.com mailto:prannoy.b...@gmail.com wrote:


ᐧ

There was one whitespace error in the LyXRC.h file.I am sorry for
the carelessness

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org
mailto:sa...@lyx.org wrote:

Prannoy Pilligundla wrote:
 index ce78d29..4ffe7d6 100644
 --- a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp
 +++ b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp
 @@ -3879,7 +3879,9 @@ void GuiView::toggleFullScreen()
   setContentsMargins(-2, -2, -2, -2);
   saveLayout();
   setWindowState(windowState() ^
Qt::WindowFullScreen);
 - statusBar()-hide();
 + //statusBar()-hide();

this line can be completely kicked out


Do i have to send an other patch with this change?

Re: Diff for Ticket #8816

[Prannoy Pilligundla]

Thanks for the approval
ᐧ


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Richard Heck rgh...@lyx.org wrote:

  On 02/25/2014 12:40 PM, Prannoy Pilligundla wrote:

 I did send my GPL mail and i removed the unwanted comment that Pavel had
 pointed out.I am attaching both the patches


 Committed. Thanks.

 rh



  Thanks and Regards
 Prannoy Pilligundla
  ᐧ


 On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Prannoy Pilligundla 
 prannoy.b...@gmail.com wrote:

  ᐧ

  There was one whitespace error in the LyXRC.h file.I am sorry for the
 carelessness

   On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:

 Prannoy Pilligundla wrote:
  index ce78d29..4ffe7d6 100644
  --- a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp
  +++ b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp
  @@ -3879,7 +3879,9 @@ void GuiView::toggleFullScreen()
setContentsMargins(-2, -2, -2, -2);
saveLayout();
setWindowState(windowState() ^ Qt::WindowFullScreen);
  - statusBar()-hide();
  + //statusBar()-hide();

 this line can be completely kicked out


   Do i have to send an other patch with this change?

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Wilfried]

stefano franchi wrote:
> 
> I agree, in principle and on practical grounds too (see the
> possibility to leverage tex4ht). However, it is true that the eventual
> users of the Lyx-->Doc converter (and of the roundtrip tool) will
> overwhelmingly be Word users, not LibreOffice users. Before we choose
> to go down the ODF path I would very much like to test whether the
> core features we are interested in---semantic marking, footnotes,
> math,  changes, notes and possibly frames---can survive the
> ODF<-->Word round trip.
> 
> Is anyone with Word willing to carry out the test? I can provide a
> test document in ODF format.
> 

If noone else raises his / her hand, I would. 
(I am principally interested in LaTeX <-> Word conversions.)
-- 
Wilfried Hennings

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Rainer M Krug]

stefano franchi  writes:

> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Cyrille Artho  wrote:
>> I agree. A user who is interested in using LyX is also going to install
>> LibreOffice (if it's not already installed). Furthermore, we can't expect
>> student participants to pay hundreds of dollars just to be able to test the
>> converter.
>>
>>
>> Richard Heck wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/24/2014 06:11 PM, stefano franchi wrote:

 On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Georg Baum
  wrote:
>
> Rainer M Krug wrote:
>
>> As far as I know, doc is a non documented binary format - so I would
>> definitely not go there.
>
> AFAIK there are many details known about .doc, but this is a dead
> format,
> and any round trip that uses it will be obsolete rather sooner than
> later.
>

 I agree completely. Let's avoid dead formats and focus on the choice
 Word vs. ODF
>>>
>>>
>>> I would have thought it was in the spirit of the project to focus on ODF.
>>> Word reads and writes it, and anyone who's a Word-user can download and
>>> use
>>> Libre Office for free without much loss.
>>>
>
>
> I agree, in principle and on practical grounds too (see the
> possibility to leverage tex4ht). However, it is true that the eventual
> users of the Lyx-->Doc converter (and of the roundtrip tool) will
> overwhelmingly be Word users, not LibreOffice users. Before we choose
> to go down the ODF path I would very much like to test whether the
> core features we are interested in---semantic marking, footnotes,
> math,  changes, notes and possibly frames---can survive the
> ODF<-->Word round trip.
>
> Is anyone with Word willing to carry out the test? I can provide a
> test document in ODF format.

I can test it on a Mac. If you send me the document privately, I can 

1) save it in LibreOffice 4.1.2.3 as .docx
2) open it in MS Word:Mac 2011 14.3.9
3) compare the documents
4) do a minor edit (if you have any specific edits I shoud do, please
let me know)
5) save it again
6) open it in LibreOffice

I will also create pdfs of each stage.

We have to keep in mind, that it seems that at least MS Office 2011 on
a Mac *can not* read and write .odt files. If somebody using a newer
version of OS Office for Mac can confirm this?

Cheers,

Rainer

>
>
> S.

-- 
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


pgpMtpyTThwim.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Wilfried]

Rainer M Krug wrote:

> Wilfried  writes:
> 
> > stefano franchi wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Rainer M Krug  wrote:
> >> > stefano franchi  writes:
> >> >
> >> 
> >> >> 2. Whether to target Microsoft's Word XML format or the Open Document
> >> >> Format (similarly XML-based)
> >> >
> >> > I would strongly argue for the Microsoft Word XML, as each conversion
> >> > creates problems and inconsistencies. This said, if the conversion from
> >> > MS Word XML to ODF and back can be done without causing problems in the
> >> > roundtrip (i.e. the round-trip would then be lyx - ODF XML - MS XML -
> >> > ODF XML - lyx)I would argue for the more "open" format which can be used
> >> > on more Operating systems.
> >> >
> >> 
> >> I have been told that, in its most recent versions, Microsoft Word can
> >> read ODF version >= 1.2 directly. That is, it can open,
> >> edit, and save files in OpenOffice's native format. I have no means of
> >> checking this assertion, as I have no access to MS Word.
> >> Could anyone with such access give it a try?
> >
> > In principle, this is true.
> > However OO (I tested with Apache OO 4.01) cannot save in the latest Word
> > format (.docx), and saveing as MS .xml results in complete loss of the
> > equations. 
> 
> This is not true for Libre Office (4.1.2.3) on ac - I just tried, and a
> small formula in LibreOffice, saved as .odt, then saved as .docx
> (Microsoft Office 2007/2010 XML) resulted in a docx which could be
> opened in Word 2011 and the equation was there. I=t could be edited and,
> when re-opened in LibreOffice, the edits were there.
> 
> > Round trip is best if saving to Word 97/2000/2003 .doc
> > format.
> 
> As far as I know, doc is a non documented binary format - so I would
> definitely not go there.
> 
> >
> > Word supports 3 ways to write equations:
> > The oldest one is the EQ field function, which is easy to convert but
> > rarely used in practice.
> > The next is using the Equation Editor (standard for up to Word 2000) or
> > its mature brother MathType which both create MTEF objects.
> > The latest are Word 2007 and up equations (with a different object type
> > OMML).
> > And OpenOffice has its own equation editor which creates another object
> > type, which cannot be converted to any of Word's equation types, at
> > least not by Word nor by MathType (up to 6.7.a - current version is
> > 6.9). However, Mathtype can convert to and from MathML and LaTeX.
> > The newer Word equation object can only be converted to the older object
> > type by MathType (AFAIK).
> 
> I can not comment on this.
> 
> >
> > An OO document, containing an equation created in OO, saved as MS .doc
> > (Word 97/2000/2003) and opened in Word 2010 contains the equation but
> > this equation is not editable in Word - for editing this equation one
> > needs OpenOffice installed. At least after the round trip OO -> .doc ->
> > Word -> .doc -> OO the equation is still editable in OO.
> > And an equation created in Word is not editable in OO. Even worse, if
> > one uses the newer (Word 2007 and up) equation format (which is default
> > if one uses the .docx format), then saves as .doc, the newer equations
> > are irreversibly converted to pictures.
> >
> > Hope that makes the problems more clear.
> 
> As I stated above, I could create a document =in Libre office, including
> equation, save it as docx, open it in Word 2011, edit the formula, save
> it, open the document in LibreOffice, edits were there, and I could
> continue editing there. May be differences between OpenOffice and
> LibreOffice?

I comparedLibreOfficeandOpenOffice:

Save as .doc yesyes
Equation saved asMTEF, editable  OOmath, not editable
Roundtripno, stays MTEF  remains OOMath
 MTEF remains MTEF 

Save as .docxyesno
Equation saved asOMML, editable
Roundtripyes, back to OOMath
 MTEF remains MTEF 


Abbreviations:
OOMath = OpenOffice or LibreOffice Equation 
MTEF   = Microsoft Equation Editor (up to Word 2003) or MathType
OMML   = Microsoft Equation (Word 2007 and up)

So, roundtrip is best with 
LibreOffice saving as .docx and opening from .docx

-- 
Wilfried Hennings

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Rainer M Krug]

Wilfried  writes:

> Rainer M Krug wrote:
>
>> Wilfried  writes:
>> 
>> > stefano franchi wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Rainer M Krug  wrote:
>> >> > stefano franchi  writes:
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> >> 2. Whether to target Microsoft's Word XML format or the Open Document
>> >> >> Format (similarly XML-based)
>> >> >
>> >> > I would strongly argue for the Microsoft Word XML, as each conversion
>> >> > creates problems and inconsistencies. This said, if the conversion from
>> >> > MS Word XML to ODF and back can be done without causing problems in the
>> >> > roundtrip (i.e. the round-trip would then be lyx - ODF XML - MS XML -
>> >> > ODF XML - lyx)I would argue for the more "open" format which can be used
>> >> > on more Operating systems.
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> I have been told that, in its most recent versions, Microsoft Word can
>> >> read ODF version >= 1.2 directly. That is, it can open,
>> >> edit, and save files in OpenOffice's native format. I have no means of
>> >> checking this assertion, as I have no access to MS Word.
>> >> Could anyone with such access give it a try?
>> >
>> > In principle, this is true.
>> > However OO (I tested with Apache OO 4.01) cannot save in the latest Word
>> > format (.docx), and saveing as MS .xml results in complete loss of the
>> > equations. 
>> 
>> This is not true for Libre Office (4.1.2.3) on ac - I just tried, and a
>> small formula in LibreOffice, saved as .odt, then saved as .docx
>> (Microsoft Office 2007/2010 XML) resulted in a docx which could be
>> opened in Word 2011 and the equation was there. I=t could be edited and,
>> when re-opened in LibreOffice, the edits were there.
>> 
>> > Round trip is best if saving to Word 97/2000/2003 .doc
>> > format.
>> 
>> As far as I know, doc is a non documented binary format - so I would
>> definitely not go there.
>> 
>> >
>> > Word supports 3 ways to write equations:
>> > The oldest one is the EQ field function, which is easy to convert but
>> > rarely used in practice.
>> > The next is using the Equation Editor (standard for up to Word 2000) or
>> > its mature brother MathType which both create MTEF objects.
>> > The latest are Word 2007 and up equations (with a different object type
>> > OMML).
>> > And OpenOffice has its own equation editor which creates another object
>> > type, which cannot be converted to any of Word's equation types, at
>> > least not by Word nor by MathType (up to 6.7.a - current version is
>> > 6.9). However, Mathtype can convert to and from MathML and LaTeX.
>> > The newer Word equation object can only be converted to the older object
>> > type by MathType (AFAIK).
>> 
>> I can not comment on this.
>> 
>> >
>> > An OO document, containing an equation created in OO, saved as MS .doc
>> > (Word 97/2000/2003) and opened in Word 2010 contains the equation but
>> > this equation is not editable in Word - for editing this equation one
>> > needs OpenOffice installed. At least after the round trip OO -> .doc ->
>> > Word -> .doc -> OO the equation is still editable in OO.
>> > And an equation created in Word is not editable in OO. Even worse, if
>> > one uses the newer (Word 2007 and up) equation format (which is default
>> > if one uses the .docx format), then saves as .doc, the newer equations
>> > are irreversibly converted to pictures.
>> >
>> > Hope that makes the problems more clear.
>> 
>> As I stated above, I could create a document =in Libre office, including
>> equation, save it as docx, open it in Word 2011, edit the formula, save
>> it, open the document in LibreOffice, edits were there, and I could
>> continue editing there. May be differences between OpenOffice and
>> LibreOffice?
>
> I comparedLibreOfficeandOpenOffice:
>
> Save as .doc yesyes
> Equation saved asMTEF, editable  OOmath, not editable
> Roundtripno, stays MTEF  remains OOMath
>  MTEF remains MTEF 
>
> Save as .docxyesno
> Equation saved asOMML, editable
> Roundtripyes, back to OOMath
>  MTEF remains MTEF 
>
>
> Abbreviations:
> OOMath = OpenOffice or LibreOffice Equation 
> MTEF   = Microsoft Equation Editor (up to Word 2003) or MathType
> OMML   = Microsoft Equation (Word 2007 and up)
>
> So, roundtrip is best with 
> LibreOffice saving as .docx and opening from .docx

Unless we want to stay open, and use odt format, which then can be
converted to docx using LibreOffice, but as Stefano pointed out, the
users "on the other side" will most likely be using MS Word, which is
particularly true for editors of Journals. So unless the conversion odt
<-> can be done in the background and it is lossless, I would go with
docx as the target format.

Cheers,

Rainer

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

Re: GSOC 2014 -- next steps

[Rainer M Krug]

stefano franchi  writes:

> Dear Lyx developers,
>
> as you know, we have been accepted into GSOC 2014. The next step is to
> get ready to evaluate students' proposal, which will start coming in
> about a week, with the usual flurry as we get close to the deadline
> (March 21st).
>
> I would appreciate if all the developers who participated in GSOC last
> year could register again as mentors on google-melange [1], *even if
> you do not plan to be an active mentor* this year. Registration on
> melange will give you access to the proposals and will let you assess
> them.
>
> Notice that you may have to reregister with google-melange, as te app
> seems to have deleted usernames from last year. Both Liviu and I had
> to do so. Once you are properly logged in, go to the Dashboard and
> click on "connect with organizations" requesting the role of mentor.
> Liviu or I will have to approve your request, after which you will
> recive a confirmation and you'll be ready to roll.

Just to inform you, I have registered as a co-mentor for the roundtrip
project. I will not be able to provide programming mentoring as I have
no knowledge in the internals of LyX, but I would be very much
interested to be involve=d in the discussion about the direction and
outline of the roundtrip, as I was one of the initial authors ot=f the proposal.

Cheers,

Rainer

>
> Thanks!
>
> Stefano
>
>
> [1] https://google-melange.appspot.com/gsoc/events/google/gsoc2014

-- 
Rainer M. Krug

email: RMKruggmailcom


pgptDs5d5BXe_.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: GSOC 2014 -- next steps

[Cyrille Artho]

For those still signing up; I got a lot of error messages first in one
browser session where I was already logged in to two Google accounts.
Nothing I tried let me go further.

Now I tried again at home and it seems the profile was created after
all; I could continue without a hitch...

So maybe you have to clear all cookies, close the browser, etc. to make
things work. "Have you tried turning it off and on again?" seems to be
the mantra with Google's web services :-)


Rainer M Krug wrote:
> stefano franchi  writes:
> 
>> Dear Lyx developers,
>>
>> as you know, we have been accepted into GSOC 2014. The next step is to
>> get ready to evaluate students' proposal, which will start coming in
>> about a week, with the usual flurry as we get close to the deadline
>> (March 21st).
>>
>> I would appreciate if all the developers who participated in GSOC last
>> year could register again as mentors on google-melange [1], *even if
>> you do not plan to be an active mentor* this year. Registration on
>> melange will give you access to the proposals and will let you assess
>> them.
>>
>> Notice that you may have to reregister with google-melange, as te app
>> seems to have deleted usernames from last year. Both Liviu and I had
>> to do so. Once you are properly logged in, go to the Dashboard and
>> click on "connect with organizations" requesting the role of mentor.
>> Liviu or I will have to approve your request, after which you will
>> recive a confirmation and you'll be ready to roll.
> 
> Just to inform you, I have registered as a co-mentor for the roundtrip
> project. I will not be able to provide programming mentoring as I have
> no knowledge in the internals of LyX, but I would be very much
> interested to be involve=d in the discussion about the direction and
> outline of the roundtrip, as I was one of the initial authors ot=f the 
> proposal.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rainer
> 
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Stefano
>>
>>
>> [1] https://google-melange.appspot.com/gsoc/events/google/gsoc2014
> 

-- 
Regards,
Cyrille Artho - http://artho.com/
Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot,
are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.
-- George Gordon Noel Byron

Contribution license

[Prannoy Pilligundla]

I hereby license my contributions to LyX under the General Public
License, Version 2 or any later version

Prannoy Pilligundla

ᐧ

Re: Diff for Ticket #8816

[Prannoy Pilligundla]

ᐧ

There was one whitespace error in the LyXRC.h file.I am sorry for the
carelessness

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:

> Prannoy Pilligundla wrote:
> > index ce78d29..4ffe7d6 100644
> > --- a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp
> > +++ b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp
> > @@ -3879,7 +3879,9 @@ void GuiView::toggleFullScreen()
> >   setContentsMargins(-2, -2, -2, -2);
> >   saveLayout();
> >   setWindowState(windowState() ^ Qt::WindowFullScreen);
> > - statusBar()->hide();
> > + //statusBar()->hide();
>
> this line can be completely kicked out


Do i have to send an other patch with this change?

Re: GSOC 2014 -- next steps

[Liviu Andronic]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Cyrille Artho  wrote:
> For those still signing up; I got a lot of error messages first in one
> browser session where I was already logged in to two Google accounts.
> Nothing I tried let me go further.
>
> Now I tried again at home and it seems the profile was created after
> all; I could continue without a hitch...
>
> So maybe you have to clear all cookies, close the browser, etc. to make
> things work. "Have you tried turning it off and on again?" seems to be
> the mantra with Google's web services :-)
>
I think sometimes you need to make sure that you click the 'login'
button on the left side-bar in Melange. Sometimes you even need to
login in using https://, even if you've already logged in using
http:// . Go figure!

Liviu


>
> Rainer M Krug wrote:
>> stefano franchi  writes:
>>
>>> Dear Lyx developers,
>>>
>>> as you know, we have been accepted into GSOC 2014. The next step is to
>>> get ready to evaluate students' proposal, which will start coming in
>>> about a week, with the usual flurry as we get close to the deadline
>>> (March 21st).
>>>
>>> I would appreciate if all the developers who participated in GSOC last
>>> year could register again as mentors on google-melange [1], *even if
>>> you do not plan to be an active mentor* this year. Registration on
>>> melange will give you access to the proposals and will let you assess
>>> them.
>>>
>>> Notice that you may have to reregister with google-melange, as te app
>>> seems to have deleted usernames from last year. Both Liviu and I had
>>> to do so. Once you are properly logged in, go to the Dashboard and
>>> click on "connect with organizations" requesting the role of mentor.
>>> Liviu or I will have to approve your request, after which you will
>>> recive a confirmation and you'll be ready to roll.
>>
>> Just to inform you, I have registered as a co-mentor for the roundtrip
>> project. I will not be able to provide programming mentoring as I have
>> no knowledge in the internals of LyX, but I would be very much
>> interested to be involve=d in the discussion about the direction and
>> outline of the roundtrip, as I was one of the initial authors ot=f the 
>> proposal.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Rainer
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Stefano
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://google-melange.appspot.com/gsoc/events/google/gsoc2014
>>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Cyrille Artho - http://artho.com/
> Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot,
> are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.
> -- George Gordon Noel Byron



-- 
Do you know how to read?
http://www.alienetworks.com/srtest.cfm
http://goodies.xfce.org/projects/applications/xfce4-dict#speed-reader
Do you know how to write?
http://garbl.home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/e.htm#e-mail

add marginefigure

[hatim]

Dear 
i hope you add "marginefigure" and "marginetable" by default like "tufte-book".
now "marginenote" only default.

regards

Re: unofficial gnuplot external template?

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> I think that there is no official gnuplot external template because of
>> security reasons,
>
> Noble goal already butchered by knitr support.
>
>>but is there an unofficial one floating around?
>
> I remember Koji Yokota had it in his hands, you might want to contact him.

Koji sent me the files (the Python script and external_templates
addition) and instructions.

> I would have no problem to add it into tarball even if not recognized by 
> default installation.

A search suggests that there would be some demand:

http://www.gauhati.ac.in/files/uploaded_files/file510.pdf
http://projectedneuralactivity.blogspot.com/2012/05/using-gnuplot-with-lyx.html
http://www.ub.edu/stat/docencia/lyx/maxima.pdf
http://jack-kelly.com/gnuplot

Scott

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Richard Heck]

It looks to me as if ODT <--> docx is OK via Libre Office. And if it's
editors of journals, etc, then one way is good enough, no?

R
On Feb 25, 2014 4:15 AM, "Rainer M Krug"  wrote:

> Wilfried  writes:
>
> > Rainer M Krug wrote:
> >
> >> Wilfried  writes:
> >>
> >> > stefano franchi wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Rainer M Krug 
> wrote:
> >> >> > stefano franchi  writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >> 2. Whether to target Microsoft's Word XML format or the Open
> Document
> >> >> >> Format (similarly XML-based)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I would strongly argue for the Microsoft Word XML, as each
> conversion
> >> >> > creates problems and inconsistencies. This said, if the conversion
> from
> >> >> > MS Word XML to ODF and back can be done without causing problems
> in the
> >> >> > roundtrip (i.e. the round-trip would then be lyx - ODF XML - MS
> XML -
> >> >> > ODF XML - lyx)I would argue for the more "open" format which can
> be used
> >> >> > on more Operating systems.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> I have been told that, in its most recent versions, Microsoft Word
> can
> >> >> read ODF version >= 1.2 directly. That is, it can open,
> >> >> edit, and save files in OpenOffice's native format. I have no means
> of
> >> >> checking this assertion, as I have no access to MS Word.
> >> >> Could anyone with such access give it a try?
> >> >
> >> > In principle, this is true.
> >> > However OO (I tested with Apache OO 4.01) cannot save in the latest
> Word
> >> > format (.docx), and saveing as MS .xml results in complete loss of the
> >> > equations.
> >>
> >> This is not true for Libre Office (4.1.2.3) on ac - I just tried, and a
> >> small formula in LibreOffice, saved as .odt, then saved as .docx
> >> (Microsoft Office 2007/2010 XML) resulted in a docx which could be
> >> opened in Word 2011 and the equation was there. I=t could be edited and,
> >> when re-opened in LibreOffice, the edits were there.
> >>
> >> > Round trip is best if saving to Word 97/2000/2003 .doc
> >> > format.
> >>
> >> As far as I know, doc is a non documented binary format - so I would
> >> definitely not go there.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Word supports 3 ways to write equations:
> >> > The oldest one is the EQ field function, which is easy to convert but
> >> > rarely used in practice.
> >> > The next is using the Equation Editor (standard for up to Word 2000)
> or
> >> > its mature brother MathType which both create MTEF objects.
> >> > The latest are Word 2007 and up equations (with a different object
> type
> >> > OMML).
> >> > And OpenOffice has its own equation editor which creates another
> object
> >> > type, which cannot be converted to any of Word's equation types, at
> >> > least not by Word nor by MathType (up to 6.7.a - current version is
> >> > 6.9). However, Mathtype can convert to and from MathML and LaTeX.
> >> > The newer Word equation object can only be converted to the older
> object
> >> > type by MathType (AFAIK).
> >>
> >> I can not comment on this.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > An OO document, containing an equation created in OO, saved as MS .doc
> >> > (Word 97/2000/2003) and opened in Word 2010 contains the equation but
> >> > this equation is not editable in Word - for editing this equation one
> >> > needs OpenOffice installed. At least after the round trip OO -> .doc
> ->
> >> > Word -> .doc -> OO the equation is still editable in OO.
> >> > And an equation created in Word is not editable in OO. Even worse, if
> >> > one uses the newer (Word 2007 and up) equation format (which is
> default
> >> > if one uses the .docx format), then saves as .doc, the newer equations
> >> > are irreversibly converted to pictures.
> >> >
> >> > Hope that makes the problems more clear.
> >>
> >> As I stated above, I could create a document =in Libre office, including
> >> equation, save it as docx, open it in Word 2011, edit the formula, save
> >> it, open the document in LibreOffice, edits were there, and I could
> >> continue editing there. May be differences between OpenOffice and
> >> LibreOffice?
> >
> > I comparedLibreOfficeandOpenOffice:
> >
> > Save as .doc yesyes
> > Equation saved asMTEF, editable  OOmath, not editable
> > Roundtripno, stays MTEF  remains OOMath
> >  MTEF remains MTEF
> >
> > Save as .docxyesno
> > Equation saved asOMML, editable
> > Roundtripyes, back to OOMath
> >  MTEF remains MTEF
> >
> >
> > Abbreviations:
> > OOMath = OpenOffice or LibreOffice Equation
> > MTEF   = Microsoft Equation Editor (up to Word 2003) or MathType
> > OMML   = Microsoft Equation (Word 2007 and up)
> >
> > So, roundtrip is best with
> > LibreOffice saving as .docx and opening from .docx
>
> Unless we want to stay open, and use odt format, which then can be

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[stefano franchi]

I am preparing a LyX document with all the features listed in our GSOC
2014 page. I will transfer it to ODF with tex4ht, possibly fix it
manually,  and then will circulate it on list for ODF/Docx tests.

Here is what I am including:

sections, headers, ...
lists
emphasis, bold, ...
comments
track changes
tables and figures
footnotes
bibliographic references
math
cross-references
tracked changes

It will have one section per item, do we can focus the tests on one
feature at a time, and perhaps split the document in mini-docs an have
a series of unit tests of sorts.


Question:

1. Is the list comprehensive enough? Too comprehensive?

2. For the Math: anyone having favorite equations / math constructs
that represent a sort of "baseline" case that would be desired and
other cases that would be the "optimum". I am thinking of the
complicated things I sometimes here you guys discussing on the list
and which I never use


S.


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Richard Heck  wrote:
> It looks to me as if ODT <--> docx is OK via Libre Office. And if it's
> editors of journals, etc, then one way is good enough, no?
>
> R
>
> On Feb 25, 2014 4:15 AM, "Rainer M Krug"  wrote:
>>
>> Wilfried  writes:
>>
>> > Rainer M Krug wrote:
>> >
>> >> Wilfried  writes:
>> >>
>> >> > stefano franchi wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Rainer M Krug 
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > stefano franchi  writes:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 2. Whether to target Microsoft's Word XML format or the Open
>> >> >> >> Document
>> >> >> >> Format (similarly XML-based)
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I would strongly argue for the Microsoft Word XML, as each
>> >> >> > conversion
>> >> >> > creates problems and inconsistencies. This said, if the conversion
>> >> >> > from
>> >> >> > MS Word XML to ODF and back can be done without causing problems
>> >> >> > in the
>> >> >> > roundtrip (i.e. the round-trip would then be lyx - ODF XML - MS
>> >> >> > XML -
>> >> >> > ODF XML - lyx)I would argue for the more "open" format which can
>> >> >> > be used
>> >> >> > on more Operating systems.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have been told that, in its most recent versions, Microsoft Word
>> >> >> can
>> >> >> read ODF version >= 1.2 directly. That is, it can open,
>> >> >> edit, and save files in OpenOffice's native format. I have no means
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> checking this assertion, as I have no access to MS Word.
>> >> >> Could anyone with such access give it a try?
>> >> >
>> >> > In principle, this is true.
>> >> > However OO (I tested with Apache OO 4.01) cannot save in the latest
>> >> > Word
>> >> > format (.docx), and saveing as MS .xml results in complete loss of
>> >> > the
>> >> > equations.
>> >>
>> >> This is not true for Libre Office (4.1.2.3) on ac - I just tried, and a
>> >> small formula in LibreOffice, saved as .odt, then saved as .docx
>> >> (Microsoft Office 2007/2010 XML) resulted in a docx which could be
>> >> opened in Word 2011 and the equation was there. I=t could be edited
>> >> and,
>> >> when re-opened in LibreOffice, the edits were there.
>> >>
>> >> > Round trip is best if saving to Word 97/2000/2003 .doc
>> >> > format.
>> >>
>> >> As far as I know, doc is a non documented binary format - so I would
>> >> definitely not go there.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Word supports 3 ways to write equations:
>> >> > The oldest one is the EQ field function, which is easy to convert but
>> >> > rarely used in practice.
>> >> > The next is using the Equation Editor (standard for up to Word 2000)
>> >> > or
>> >> > its mature brother MathType which both create MTEF objects.
>> >> > The latest are Word 2007 and up equations (with a different object
>> >> > type
>> >> > OMML).
>> >> > And OpenOffice has its own equation editor which creates another
>> >> > object
>> >> > type, which cannot be converted to any of Word's equation types, at
>> >> > least not by Word nor by MathType (up to 6.7.a - current version is
>> >> > 6.9). However, Mathtype can convert to and from MathML and LaTeX.
>> >> > The newer Word equation object can only be converted to the older
>> >> > object
>> >> > type by MathType (AFAIK).
>> >>
>> >> I can not comment on this.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > An OO document, containing an equation created in OO, saved as MS
>> >> > .doc
>> >> > (Word 97/2000/2003) and opened in Word 2010 contains the equation but
>> >> > this equation is not editable in Word - for editing this equation one
>> >> > needs OpenOffice installed. At least after the round trip OO -> .doc
>> >> > ->
>> >> > Word -> .doc -> OO the equation is still editable in OO.
>> >> > And an equation created in Word is not editable in OO. Even worse, if
>> >> > one uses the newer (Word 2007 and up) equation format (which is
>> >> > default
>> >> > if one uses the .docx format), then saves as .doc, the newer
>> >> > equations
>> >> > are irreversibly converted to 

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Rainer M Krug]

stefano franchi  writes:

> I am preparing a LyX document with all the features listed in our GSOC
> 2014 page. I will transfer it to ODF with tex4ht, possibly fix it
> manually,  and then will circulate it on list for ODF/Docx tests.

I think this is a brilliant idea - ths could then become the benchmark
for the complete round-trip.

>
> Here is what I am including:
>
> sections, headers, ...
> lists
> emphasis, bold, ...
> comments
> track changes
> tables and figures
> footnotes
> bibliographic references
> math
> cross-references
> tracked changes
>
> It will have one section per item, do we can focus the tests on one
> feature at a time, and perhaps split the document in mini-docs an have
> a series of unit tests of sorts.
>
>
> Question:
>
> 1. Is the list comprehensive enough? Too comprehensive?

We should possibly prioritize some aspects which are more essential then
others. There will very likely be some different views on e.g. math and
footnotes, but I assume that there are some we can agree on. My list
would be, in descending order of importance:

1) sections, headers, ...
2) lists
3) emphasis, bold, ...
4) comments
5) track changes
6) tables and figures
7) bibliographic references
8) tables
9) figures
10) math, footnotes & cross-references

>
> 2. For the Math: anyone having favorite equations / math constructs
> that represent a sort of "baseline" case that would be desired and
> other cases that would be the "optimum". I am thinking of the
> complicated things I sometimes here you guys discussing on the list
> and which I never use

Not from my side - sorry. I prefer simple maths.

Looking forward to the document,

Rainer

>
>
> S.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Richard Heck  wrote:
>> It looks to me as if ODT <--> docx is OK via Libre Office. And if it's
>> editors of journals, etc, then one way is good enough, no?
>>
>> R
>>
>> On Feb 25, 2014 4:15 AM, "Rainer M Krug"  wrote:
>>>
>>> Wilfried  writes:
>>>
>>> > Rainer M Krug wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Wilfried  writes:
>>> >>
>>> >> > stefano franchi wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Rainer M Krug 
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> > stefano franchi  writes:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> 2. Whether to target Microsoft's Word XML format or the Open
>>> >> >> >> Document
>>> >> >> >> Format (similarly XML-based)
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > I would strongly argue for the Microsoft Word XML, as each
>>> >> >> > conversion
>>> >> >> > creates problems and inconsistencies. This said, if the conversion
>>> >> >> > from
>>> >> >> > MS Word XML to ODF and back can be done without causing problems
>>> >> >> > in the
>>> >> >> > roundtrip (i.e. the round-trip would then be lyx - ODF XML - MS
>>> >> >> > XML -
>>> >> >> > ODF XML - lyx)I would argue for the more "open" format which can
>>> >> >> > be used
>>> >> >> > on more Operating systems.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I have been told that, in its most recent versions, Microsoft Word
>>> >> >> can
>>> >> >> read ODF version >= 1.2 directly. That is, it can open,
>>> >> >> edit, and save files in OpenOffice's native format. I have no means
>>> >> >> of
>>> >> >> checking this assertion, as I have no access to MS Word.
>>> >> >> Could anyone with such access give it a try?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > In principle, this is true.
>>> >> > However OO (I tested with Apache OO 4.01) cannot save in the latest
>>> >> > Word
>>> >> > format (.docx), and saveing as MS .xml results in complete loss of
>>> >> > the
>>> >> > equations.
>>> >>
>>> >> This is not true for Libre Office (4.1.2.3) on ac - I just tried, and a
>>> >> small formula in LibreOffice, saved as .odt, then saved as .docx
>>> >> (Microsoft Office 2007/2010 XML) resulted in a docx which could be
>>> >> opened in Word 2011 and the equation was there. I=t could be edited
>>> >> and,
>>> >> when re-opened in LibreOffice, the edits were there.
>>> >>
>>> >> > Round trip is best if saving to Word 97/2000/2003 .doc
>>> >> > format.
>>> >>
>>> >> As far as I know, doc is a non documented binary format - so I would
>>> >> definitely not go there.
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Word supports 3 ways to write equations:
>>> >> > The oldest one is the EQ field function, which is easy to convert but
>>> >> > rarely used in practice.
>>> >> > The next is using the Equation Editor (standard for up to Word 2000)
>>> >> > or
>>> >> > its mature brother MathType which both create MTEF objects.
>>> >> > The latest are Word 2007 and up equations (with a different object
>>> >> > type
>>> >> > OMML).
>>> >> > And OpenOffice has its own equation editor which creates another
>>> >> > object
>>> >> > type, which cannot be converted to any of Word's equation types, at
>>> >> > least not by Word nor by MathType (up to 6.7.a - current version is
>>> >> > 6.9). However, Mathtype can convert to and from MathML and LaTeX.
>>> >> > The 

Re: Diff for Ticket #8816

[Prannoy Pilligundla]

I did send my GPL mail and i removed the unwanted comment that Pavel had
pointed out.I am attaching both the patches

Thanks and Regards
Prannoy Pilligundla
ᐧ


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Prannoy Pilligundla  wrote:

> ᐧ
>
> There was one whitespace error in the LyXRC.h file.I am sorry for the
> carelessness
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:
>
>> Prannoy Pilligundla wrote:
>> > index ce78d29..4ffe7d6 100644
>> > --- a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp
>> > +++ b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp
>> > @@ -3879,7 +3879,9 @@ void GuiView::toggleFullScreen()
>> >   setContentsMargins(-2, -2, -2, -2);
>> >   saveLayout();
>> >   setWindowState(windowState() ^ Qt::WindowFullScreen);
>> > - statusBar()->hide();
>> > + //statusBar()->hide();
>>
>> this line can be completely kicked out
>
>
> Do i have to send an other patch with this change?
>
>
From ee2fb5b24ad03bb31c27dc09e352dbec3eb55951 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Prannoy Pilligundla 
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:29:24 +0530
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Fix Ticket #8816

---
 src/LyXRC.cpp  |   14 ++
 src/LyXRC.h|3 +++
 src/frontends/qt4/GuiPrefs.cpp |4 
 src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp  |4 +++-
 src/frontends/qt4/ui/PrefEditUi.ui |7 +++
 5 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/src/LyXRC.cpp b/src/LyXRC.cpp
index c0a6467..8b186f9 100644
--- a/src/LyXRC.cpp
+++ b/src/LyXRC.cpp
@@ -110,6 +110,7 @@ LexerKeyword lyxrcTags[] = {
 	{ "\\fullscreen_limit", LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_LIMIT },
 	{ "\\fullscreen_menubar", LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_MENUBAR },
 	{ "\\fullscreen_scrollbar", LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_SCROLLBAR },
+{ "\\fullscreen_statusbar", LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_STATUSBAR },
 	{ "\\fullscreen_tabbar", LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_TABBAR },
 	{ "\\fullscreen_toolbars", LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_TOOLBARS },
 	{ "\\fullscreen_width", LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_WIDTH },
@@ -1237,6 +1238,9 @@ LyXRC::ReturnValues LyXRC::read(Lexer & lexrc, bool check_format)
 		case RC_FULL_SCREEN_SCROLLBAR:
 			lexrc >> full_screen_scrollbar;
 			break;
+case RC_FULL_SCREEN_STATUSBAR:
+			lexrc >> full_screen_statusbar;
+			break;
 		case RC_FULL_SCREEN_TABBAR:
 			lexrc >> full_screen_tabbar;
 			break;
@@ -1945,6 +1949,15 @@ void LyXRC::write(ostream & os, bool ignore_system_lyxrc, string const & name) c
 		}
 		if (tag != RC_LAST)
 			break;
+case RC_FULL_SCREEN_STATUSBAR:
+		if (ignore_system_lyxrc ||
+		full_screen_statusbar != system_lyxrc.full_screen_statusbar) {
+			os << "\\fullscreen_statusbar "
+			   << convert(full_screen_statusbar)
+			   << '\n';
+		}
+		if (tag != RC_LAST)
+			break;
 	case RC_FULL_SCREEN_TABBAR:
 		if (ignore_system_lyxrc ||
 		full_screen_tabbar != system_lyxrc.full_screen_tabbar) {
@@ -3061,6 +3074,7 @@ void actOnUpdatedPrefs(LyXRC const & lyxrc_orig, LyXRC const & lyxrc_new)
 	case LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_LIMIT:
 	case LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_SCROLLBAR:
 	case LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_MENUBAR:
+case LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_STATUSBAR:
 	case LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_TABBAR:
 	case LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_TOOLBARS:
 	case LyXRC::RC_FULL_SCREEN_WIDTH:
diff --git a/src/LyXRC.h b/src/LyXRC.h
index 94914cc..9a45f93 100644
--- a/src/LyXRC.h
+++ b/src/LyXRC.h
@@ -86,6 +86,7 @@ public:
 		RC_FORWARD_SEARCH_PDF,
 		RC_FULL_SCREEN_LIMIT,
 		RC_FULL_SCREEN_SCROLLBAR,
+RC_FULL_SCREEN_STATUSBAR,
 		RC_FULL_SCREEN_TABBAR,
 		RC_FULL_SCREEN_MENUBAR,
 		RC_FULL_SCREEN_TOOLBARS,
@@ -499,6 +500,8 @@ public:
 	bool full_screen_tabbar;
 	/// Toggle menubar in fullscreen mode?
 	bool full_screen_menubar;
+	///Toggle statusbar in fullscreen mode?
+bool full_screen_statusbar;
 	/// Limit the text width?
 	bool full_screen_limit;
 	/// Width of limited screen (in pixels) in fullscreen mode
diff --git a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiPrefs.cpp b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiPrefs.cpp
index 8686690..feebf76 100644
--- a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiPrefs.cpp
+++ b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiPrefs.cpp
@@ -2723,6 +2723,8 @@ PrefEdit::PrefEdit(GuiPreferences * form)
 		this, SIGNAL(changed()));
 	connect(toggleScrollbarCB, SIGNAL(toggled(bool)),
 		this, SIGNAL(changed()));
+connect(toggleStatusbarCB, SIGNAL(toggled(bool)),
+		this, SIGNAL(changed()));
 	connect(toggleToolbarsCB, SIGNAL(toggled(bool)),
 		this, SIGNAL(changed()));
 }
@@ -2743,6 +2745,7 @@ void PrefEdit::apply(LyXRC & rc) const
 	rc.cursor_width = cursorWidthSB->value();
 	rc.full_screen_toolbars = toggleToolbarsCB->isChecked();
 	rc.full_screen_scrollbar = toggleScrollbarCB->isChecked();
+rc.full_screen_statusbar = toggleStatusbarCB->isChecked();
 	rc.full_screen_tabbar = toggleTabbarCB->isChecked();
 	rc.full_screen_menubar = toggleMenubarCB->isChecked();
 	rc.full_screen_width = fullscreenWidthSB->value();
@@ -2760,6 +2763,7 @@ void 

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Richard Heck]

On 02/25/2014 12:13 PM, Rainer M Krug wrote:

stefano franchi  writes:


I am preparing a LyX document with all the features listed in our GSOC
2014 page. I will transfer it to ODF with tex4ht, possibly fix it
manually,  and then will circulate it on list for ODF/Docx tests.

I think this is a brilliant idea - ths could then become the benchmark
for the complete round-trip.


Here is what I am including:

sections, headers, ...
lists
emphasis, bold, ...
comments
track changes
tables and figures
footnotes
bibliographic references
math
cross-references
tracked changes

It will have one section per item, do we can focus the tests on one
feature at a time, and perhaps split the document in mini-docs an have
a series of unit tests of sorts.


Question:

1. Is the list comprehensive enough? Too comprehensive?

We should possibly prioritize some aspects which are more essential then
others. There will very likely be some different views on e.g. math and
footnotes, but I assume that there are some we can agree on. My list
would be, in descending order of importance:

1) sections, headers, ...
2) lists
3) emphasis, bold, ...
4) comments
5) track changes
6) tables and figures
7) bibliographic references
8) tables
9) figures
10) math, footnotes & cross-references


Tables and figures, and tables, and figures? ;-)

I guess I'd count "math" as not one thing. Dealing with the simple 
constructs is essential, and perhaps more complex constructs are less 
so. But it would at least be worth having, as part of the test suite, 
the full panoply of arrays and equation types.


Is it even possible to handle math macros in DOCX? I'd include them, 
because we'll have to do something with them, if only put them in 
comments so they can be recovered on re-import.


It's perhaps worth noting, somewhere, that we already know how to export 
MathML, though that may need tweaking for this purpose, and there are, 
of course, bugs in the current code.


Richard

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[stefano franchi]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Richard Heck  wrote:
> On 02/25/2014 12:13 PM, Rainer M Krug wrote:
>>
>> stefano franchi  writes:
>>
>>> I am preparing a LyX document with all the features listed in our GSOC
>>> 2014 page. I will transfer it to ODF with tex4ht, possibly fix it
>>> manually,  and then will circulate it on list for ODF/Docx tests.
>>
>> I think this is a brilliant idea - ths could then become the benchmark
>> for the complete round-trip.
>>
>>> Here is what I am including:
>>>
>>> sections, headers, ...
>>> lists
>>> emphasis, bold, ...
>>> comments
>>> track changes
>>> tables and figures
>>> footnotes
>>> bibliographic references
>>> math
>>> cross-references
>>> tracked changes
>>>
>>> It will have one section per item, do we can focus the tests on one
>>> feature at a time, and perhaps split the document in mini-docs an have
>>> a series of unit tests of sorts.
>>>
>>>
>>> Question:
>>>
>>> 1. Is the list comprehensive enough? Too comprehensive?
>>
>> We should possibly prioritize some aspects which are more essential then
>> others. There will very likely be some different views on e.g. math and
>> footnotes, but I assume that there are some we can agree on. My list
>> would be, in descending order of importance:
>>
>> 1) sections, headers, ...
>> 2) lists
>> 3) emphasis, bold, ...
>> 4) comments
>> 5) track changes
>> 6) tables and figures
>> 7) bibliographic references
>> 8) tables
>> 9) figures
>> 10) math, footnotes & cross-references
>
>
> Tables and figures, and tables, and figures? ;-)
>


Yeah, that was a cut and paste from the wiki, with my additions
appended. The current list is:

1. Lists
2. Sectioning environments
3. Headers and footers
4. Emphasis, bold, and other character styles
5. Comments and notes
6. Tracked changes
7. Tables and figures
8. Footnotes
9. Bibliographic references
10. Mathematical expressions
11. Cross-references
12. LateX generated text


It is not easy to write a document that keeps the various features
separate, though.
The main "Sectioning environments" are used through out the document.
Similarly for "Headers and footers"
For testing purposes it would be good to have documents with local
features only.  So perhaps it would be worth to have separate
documents for "Headers and footers" and "Sectioning" (and perhaps also
for Math, given the complexity of the issue). Converserly, all
headers/footers and sectioning would be eliminated from the other
document.

> I guess I'd count "math" as not one thing. Dealing with the simple
> constructs is essential, and perhaps more complex constructs are less so.
> But it would at least be worth having, as part of the test suite, the full
> panoply of arrays and equation types.

I hope someone could provide such a panoply. My use of math is very
limited and I have no real understanding of the range of issues
involved. I read the Math manual, but it is  organized with final
formatting in mind (and for good reasons). I guess we should abstract
from final formatting and focus on the overall features (i.e.
operator, decorators, semantic relevant math fonts (BlackBoard,
Fraktur, etc), and so on.
Help would be appreciate don the issue.


> Is it even possible to handle math macros in DOCX? I'd include them, because
> we'll have to do something with them, if only put them in comments so they
> can be recovered on re-import.

I have no clue about this. I am not even sure I understand what is the
point of a math macro, never having used them.
Again, help is appreciated.


> It's perhaps worth noting, somewhere, that we already know how to export
> MathML, though that may need tweaking for this purpose, and there are, of
> course, bugs in the current code.

Richard, since LyX stores Math expressions in LaTeX native code (I
believe), does this mean that our current LyX-to0-MathML code is
actually (or almost) doing a  LaTeX-to-MathML export?


Stefano


-- 
__
Stefano Franchi
Associate Research Professor
Department of Hispanic Studies Ph:   +1 (979) 845-2125
Texas A University  Fax:  +1 (979) 845-6421
College Station, Texas, USA

stef...@tamu.edu
http://stefano.cleinias.org

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Wilfried]

stefano franchi wrote:

> I am preparing a LyX document with all the features listed in our GSOC
> 2014 page. I will transfer it to ODF with tex4ht, possibly fix it
> manually,  and then will circulate it on list for ODF/Docx tests.
> 
> Here is what I am including:
> 
> sections, headers, ...
> lists
> emphasis, bold, ...
> comments
> track changes
> tables and figures
> footnotes
> bibliographic references
> math
> cross-references
> tracked changes
> 
> It will have one section per item, do we can focus the tests on one
> feature at a time, and perhaps split the document in mini-docs an have
> a series of unit tests of sorts.
> 
> 
> Question:
> 
> 1. Is the list comprehensive enough? Too comprehensive?
> 
> 2. For the Math: anyone having favorite equations / math constructs
> that represent a sort of "baseline" case that would be desired and
> other cases that would be the "optimum". I am thinking of the
> complicated things I sometimes here you guys discussing on the list
> and which I never use

Hello everyone,
as I am involved in the LaTeX -> rtf converter, I know that we have at
least 2 LaTeX test files for checking the conversion of equations. The
test files are available at sourceforge (simplest: in the svn
repository):

http://sourceforge.net/p/latex2rtf/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/test/eqns.tex?format=raw

http://sourceforge.net/p/latex2rtf/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/test/eqns2.tex?format=raw

-- 
Wilfried Hennings

Re: add marginefigure

[PhilipPirrip]

i hope you add "marginefigure" and "marginetable" by default like "tufte-book".
now "marginenote" only default.


Nothing prevents you from inserting a figure or a table in the margin note.

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[stefano franchi]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Wilfried  wrote:

> Hello everyone,
> as I am involved in the LaTeX -> rtf converter, I know that we have at
> least 2 LaTeX test files for checking the conversion of equations. The
> test files are available at sourceforge (simplest: in the svn
> repository):
>
> http://sourceforge.net/p/latex2rtf/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/test/eqns.tex?format=raw
>
> http://sourceforge.net/p/latex2rtf/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/test/eqns2.tex?format=raw

Thanks Wilfried, this is great.

I tried importing the latex files into LyX (2.0.7) and compiling  to
pdf and everything seems ok. However, there are a few spots in the
imported LyX in which Latex code comes over untranslated. Could you,
or anyone else with a better understanding of LaTeX math, tell me if
the same effect can be reproduced with LyX only commands (i.e if the
Latex code is just a failure of the tex2lyx converter or if Latex is
using features not currently available in LyX)?

I append the two files for simplicity.


Cheers,

Stefano




-- 
__
Stefano Franchi
Associate Research Professor
Department of Hispanic Studies Ph:   +1 (979) 845-2125
Texas A University  Fax:  +1 (979) 845-6421
College Station, Texas, USA

stef...@tamu.edu
http://stefano.cleinias.org


eqns.lyx
Description: application/lyx


eqns2.lyx
Description: application/lyx

Re: Diff for Ticket #8816

[Georg Baum]

Pavel Sanda wrote:

> Looks like you get it right.
> Seems even local enough to get into 2.1 unless others disagree.

+1


Georg

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[William Adams]

On Feb 25, 2014, at 11:03 AM, stefano franchi wrote:

> Is the list comprehensive enough?

No love for index entries?

William

-- 
William Adams
senior graphic designer
Fry Communications
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Georg Baum]

stefano franchi wrote:

> was this the text  you  are referring to?

Yes, thanks!


Georg

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Rainer M Krug]

William Adams  writes:

> On Feb 25, 2014, at 11:03 AM, stefano franchi wrote:
>
>> Is the list comprehensive enough?
>
> No love for index entries?

Not from my side - sorry.

Rainer

>
> William

-- 
Rainer M. Krug

email: RMKruggmailcom


pgplFvC5aAhzZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Georg Baum]

stefano franchi wrote:

> Richard, since LyX stores Math expressions in LaTeX native code (I
> believe), does this mean that our current LyX-to0-MathML code is
> actually (or almost) doing a  LaTeX-to-MathML export?

Well, the MathML export does not export from the LaTeX representation, but 
from the math insets, but if you need a LaTeX Math->MathML exporter you can 
easily wrap up a simple script that pastes the formula into an empty LyX 
document and then exports that as MathML. So, in some sense it is a LaTeX-
>MathML export.


Georg

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Georg Baum]

Richard Heck wrote:

> Is it even possible to handle math macros in DOCX? I'd include them,
> because we'll have to do something with them, if only put them in
> comments so they can be recovered on re-import.

math macros are already complicated if you look only at LyX without any 
import/export. I'd rather keep them out of the project unless some very 
simple solution exists, this could be a real time killer.


Georg

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Georg Baum]

Richard Heck wrote:

> I would have thought it was in the spirit of the project to focus on
> ODF. Word reads and writes it, and anyone who's a Word-user can download
> and use Libre Office for free without much loss.

>From what I have heard and seen we cannot assume that odt<->docx is 
unproblematic. I don't know how word handles .odt (did not know that this is 
possible in newer versions), but both LibreOffice and OpenOffice definitely 
have problems with reading and writing some .docx files.
This needs to be tested carefully before we rely on such a decision.


Georg

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[Georg Baum]

stefano franchi wrote:

> Thanks Wilfried, this is great.

Yes, I also think that is is a good mixture of stuff to test.

> I tried importing the latex files into LyX (2.0.7) and compiling  to
> pdf and everything seems ok. However, there are a few spots in the
> imported LyX in which Latex code comes over untranslated. Could you,
> or anyone else with a better understanding of LaTeX math, tell me if
> the same effect can be reproduced with LyX only commands (i.e if the
> Latex code is just a failure of the tex2lyx converter or if Latex is
> using features not currently available in LyX)?

I had a quick look, and I did not find any tex2lyx problem. LyX does not 
support \verb (this occurs a lot), and LyX mathed does neither support \hbox 
nor \notag. Unless I overlooked something the result is as good as it can 
get.


Georg

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[stefano franchi]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Georg Baum
 wrote:
> stefano franchi wrote:
>
>> Thanks Wilfried, this is great.
>
> Yes, I also think that is is a good mixture of stuff to test.
>
>> I tried importing the latex files into LyX (2.0.7) and compiling  to
>> pdf and everything seems ok. However, there are a few spots in the
>> imported LyX in which Latex code comes over untranslated. Could you,
>> or anyone else with a better understanding of LaTeX math, tell me if
>> the same effect can be reproduced with LyX only commands (i.e if the
>> Latex code is just a failure of the tex2lyx converter or if Latex is
>> using features not currently available in LyX)?
>
> I had a quick look, and I did not find any tex2lyx problem. LyX does not
> support \verb (this occurs a lot), and LyX mathed does neither support \hbox
> nor \notag. Unless I overlooked something the result is as good as it can
> get.
>
>


Wilfried, Georg,

should the test be a simple union of the two documents?  Or is
eqn2.tex simply using the same features (or possibly a subset) of
eqn.tex?
Sorry for the silly question, but it is difficult to judge the
complexity and kind of Latex Math constructs when you do not have
daily practice with them.

Stefano


-- 
__
Stefano Franchi
Associate Research Professor
Department of Hispanic Studies Ph:   +1 (979) 845-2125
Texas A University  Fax:  +1 (979) 845-6421
College Station, Texas, USA

stef...@tamu.edu
http://stefano.cleinias.org

Re: [GSoC 2014]Interested in Round trip conversion between LyX and .docx formats

[stefano franchi]

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 1:35 PM, Rainer M Krug  wrote:
> William Adams  writes:
>
>> On Feb 25, 2014, at 11:03 AM, stefano franchi wrote:
>>
>>> Is the list comprehensive enough?
>>
>> No love for index entries?
>
> Not from my side - sorry.
>

Index entries were supposed to be included into "Latex generated content"

Perhaps they should be a separate entry. However, indexing is always
the last---indeed often the very last step---before final formatting,
so it is reasonable to assume that it will be done after all
conversions (round-trip or not) are over: with xindy if final output
is pdflatex and with an equivalent tool is the final format is
doc/odf.


Do you guys agree?


Stefano

-- 
__
Stefano Franchi
Associate Research Professor
Department of Hispanic Studies Ph:   +1 (979) 845-2125
Texas A University  Fax:  +1 (979) 845-6421
College Station, Texas, USA

stef...@tamu.edu
http://stefano.cleinias.org

first draft of Lyx2Word test document available

[stefano franchi]

I have completed a first draft of a test document for the Lyx2word
(and back) conversion. Since it needs additional files (bib, pdf, and
png), I created a small, public, git repo on bitbucket where you can
clone it form:

g...@bitbucket.org:sfranchi/lyxtowordandback.git

I have also added a pdf compiled file. Notice that the setup I have used is:

- class: memoir
- bibliography: biblatex + biber
- encoding: UTF8(xelatex)
- fonts: TeX Gyre suite (termes, heros,cursor), because of the wide
coverage and similarity to Times New Roman
- TeX engine: XeTeX

Please take a look and let me know what you think. I am sure that
there is a lot of room for improvements.

An odf version for Word/ODF compatibility  is coming soon.


Cheers,

Stefano

-- 
__
Stefano Franchi
Associate Research Professor
Department of Hispanic Studies Ph:   +1 (979) 845-2125
Texas A University  Fax:  +1 (979) 845-6421
College Station, Texas, USA

stef...@tamu.edu
http://stefano.cleinias.org

Re: Diff for Ticket #8816

[Richard Heck]

On 02/25/2014 12:40 PM, Prannoy Pilligundla wrote:
I did send my GPL mail and i removed the unwanted comment that Pavel 
had pointed out.I am attaching both the patches


Committed. Thanks.

rh



Thanks and Regards
Prannoy Pilligundla
ᐧ


On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Prannoy Pilligundla 
> wrote:


ᐧ

There was one whitespace error in the LyXRC.h file.I am sorry for
the carelessness

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Pavel Sanda > wrote:

Prannoy Pilligundla wrote:
> index ce78d29..4ffe7d6 100644
> --- a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp
> +++ b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp
> @@ -3879,7 +3879,9 @@ void GuiView::toggleFullScreen()
>   setContentsMargins(-2, -2, -2, -2);
>   saveLayout();
>   setWindowState(windowState() ^
Qt::WindowFullScreen);
> - statusBar()->hide();
> + //statusBar()->hide();

this line can be completely kicked out


Do i have to send an other patch with this change?

Re: Diff for Ticket #8816

[Prannoy Pilligundla]

Thanks for the approval
ᐧ


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Richard Heck  wrote:

>  On 02/25/2014 12:40 PM, Prannoy Pilligundla wrote:
>
> I did send my GPL mail and i removed the unwanted comment that Pavel had
> pointed out.I am attaching both the patches
>
>
> Committed. Thanks.
>
> rh
>
>
>
>  Thanks and Regards
> Prannoy Pilligundla
>  ᐧ
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Prannoy Pilligundla <
> prannoy.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  ᐧ
>>
>>  There was one whitespace error in the LyXRC.h file.I am sorry for the
>> carelessness
>>
>>   On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:
>>
>>> Prannoy Pilligundla wrote:
>>> > index ce78d29..4ffe7d6 100644
>>> > --- a/src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp
>>> > +++ b/src/frontends/qt4/GuiView.cpp
>>> > @@ -3879,7 +3879,9 @@ void GuiView::toggleFullScreen()
>>> >   setContentsMargins(-2, -2, -2, -2);
>>> >   saveLayout();
>>> >   setWindowState(windowState() ^ Qt::WindowFullScreen);
>>> > - statusBar()->hide();
>>> > + //statusBar()->hide();
>>>
>>> this line can be completely kicked out
>>
>>
>>   Do i have to send an other patch with this change?
>>
>>
>
>