Re: Using LyX to edit & organise bibliographies

[Dr Eberhard Lisse]

My point was that it takes 5 minutes to learn BibDesk and it takes how
many weeks to write all that code?

el

On 2012-12-17 00:26 , Andrew Parsloe wrote:
> On 16/12/2012 7:58 p.m., Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
>> Have a look at BibDesk,
>>
>> takes 1% of the time you took to re-invent the wheel.
>>
>> el
>>
>> On 2012-04-17 10:39 , Andrew Parsloe wrote:
>>> On 17/04/2012 8:43 p.m., PhilipPirrip wrote:
 Excuse me for not trying what you've done, but I have to ask first: why
 do you think this is better than using Mendeley, for instance, or some
 other bibliography management software?

>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>>> So why don't I get Mendeley (or whatever)? There are many
>>> answers to that: life is short and there are lots of things I want to
>>> learn other than new software;
>> [...]
>>
> 
> Old emails never die! This is going back to April. I know there are many
> fine bibliography managers, and any mention of the subject always has
> people bringing out their favourites. (The same thing happens with
> drawing programs.) The impulse that led me to explore editing &
> maintaining bibliographies in LyX was that it gave me a vast improvement
> over doing the same in a text editor (which is what I had done) and it
> meant that I didn't need to learn a new program -- and I was fascinated
> by how far one could push LyX in this direction. I'm retired now. I have
> only the most occasional need for a bibliography manager. And when I do,
> I prefer to use a program I know thoroughly (LyX), even if for this
> purpose it lacks the bells & whistles of dedicated programs. For people
> in active academic or professional life, the criteria are different.
> 
> Andrew
> 
> 

lyx 2.0.1: insert tex-code does not work

[Jörg Kühne]

Dear Lyx-Users

If I insert in the red box direct the tex-code, see

http://www.quora.com/How-can-I-edit-LaTeX-source-code-in-LyX

f.e.:

\documentclass[english]{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[latin9]{inputenc}
\usepackage{babel}
\begin{document}
adfaf
\end{document}


following error report appears:


 \documentclass
  [english]{article}
Your command was ignored.
Type  Ito replace it with another command,
orto continue without it.


What is wrong with that?

Regards

Joerg

Re: Would a native LyX XML schema be accepted?

[Nico Williams]

FWIW, I edit XML in vim plenty.  It's not awesome, but it's not
particularly painful either.  XML is not unfriendly to $EDITOR, but it
is more verbose.  The great value that XML provides is in technologies
like XPath, XQuery, and XSLT.  I ache for the power of XSLT in
association with LyX.

But also, even if LyX adopts a native XML format, the old .lyx format
will necessarily stick arou d for a long time due to the need to
support migration from one format to the other, so it should always be
possible to edit .lyx in $EDITOR for those who want it.  The .lyx
format can't be going away forever anytime soon!

Regarding collaborations...  there's an online, web-based,
collaborative LaTeX editor out there that is clearly superior to LyX
as far as collaborative editing goes.  It'd be nice if LyX could grow
some awesome collaborative functionality, and I think that XML
technologies can help there.

Nico
--

Re: Using fancyhead/fancyfoot in a module not working as expected

[Richard Heck]

On 12/19/2012 09:08 AM, Antonio Marcos López Alonso wrote:

Hi:

I'm rewriting the custom header/footerlines module to use fancyhead /
fancyfoot in a more "printable" way but I cannot work it out as I expected to.

If I for instance write:
.
LatexName fancyhead[RE]
..

or


LatexName fancyfoot[LO]
...

the module works OK. However if I do:

.
LatexName fancyhead[RE,LO]
.

LyX complains on:


LyX: Unknown layout tag `LO]' [around line 17 of file
~/.lyx/layouts/customHeadersFootersInnerOuter.module current token: 'LO]'
context: '']
../../src/TextClass.cpp(163): Error parsing style `Outer Header'
Warning: Error de lectura


Seems that LyX does not like commas inside LatexName?


Try quotes around it:
LatexName "fancyhead[RE,LO] "
But the better way to do it is:
LatexName fancyhead
LatexParam "[RE,LO]"
that makes it a bit more flexible.

Richard

Re: hyphen should stay

[Wolfgang Engelmann]

Am Mittwoch, 19. Dezember 2012, 14:28:19 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
> Wolfgang Engelmann wrote:
> > How can I make the hyphen stay in e.g.
> > 
> > Urin-Menge und -Zusammensetzung
> > 
> > As it is now, at the end of a line I get
> > 
> > ...Urin-Menge und -
> > Zusammensetzung...
> 
> Insert > Special Character > Protected Hyphen (Einfügen > Sonderzeichen
> > Geschützter Trennstrich). Shortcut is Strg+Alt+-

Thanks,  Jürgen, thats it.

Wolfgang

Using fancyhead/fancyfoot in a module not working as expected

[Antonio Marcos López Alonso]

Hi:

I'm rewriting the custom header/footerlines module to use fancyhead / 
fancyfoot in a more "printable" way but I cannot work it out as I expected to.

If I for instance write:
.
LatexName fancyhead[RE]
..

or


LatexName fancyfoot[LO]
...

the module works OK. However if I do:

.
LatexName fancyhead[RE,LO]
.

LyX complains on:


LyX: Unknown layout tag `LO]' [around line 17 of file 
~/.lyx/layouts/customHeadersFootersInnerOuter.module current token: 'LO]' 
context: '']
../../src/TextClass.cpp(163): Error parsing style `Outer Header'
Warning: Error de lectura


Seems that LyX does not like commas inside LatexName?


**
Antonio Marcos López Alonso

Servicio de Informática y
Telecomunicaciones

Instituto de Productos Naturales
y Agrobiología (IPNA-CSIC)

mailto:a...@ipna.csic.es
(+34) 922 260 190 (Ext. 237)
***

Re: hyphen should stay

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Wolfgang Engelmann wrote:
> How can I make the hyphen stay in e.g.
> 
> Urin-Menge und -Zusammensetzung
> 
> As it is now, at the end of a line I get
> 
> ...Urin-Menge und -
> Zusammensetzung...

Insert > Special Character > Protected Hyphen (Einfügen > Sonderzeichen > 
Geschützter Trennstrich). Shortcut is Strg+Alt+-

Jürgen

> Wolfgang

hyphen should stay

[Wolfgang Engelmann]

How can I make the hyphen stay in e.g.

Urin-Menge und -Zusammensetzung

As it is now, at the end of a line I get

...Urin-Menge und -
Zusammensetzung...

Wolfgang

Re: Would a native LyX XML schema be accepted?

[José Matos]

On 12/19/2012 04:55 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
> I disagree. At least some of us are now discussing the possibility
> of formatting native LyX as standard XML, which, as I said in another
> post, is human hostile. Many, many of us interact with LyX files
> outside of the LyX executables or utilities.
>
> These users have an incredible interest in the native format of LyX.
> Don't think for a minute this is a developers only issue.
>
> What I find the biggest insult is the motivation for this possible
> disenfranchisement of LyX users dedicated enough to interact with LyX
> files in nonstandard ways. That motivation? To accommodate Word
> weenies. You've got to be kidding. Is this what free software has come
> to?
>
> Perhaps the most ironic thing is that if full XMLitization comes to
> pass, you know what I'll use Nico's XML converter for? To export my 7
> LyX-authored books to XML, from which I can convert them to plain-TeX.
>
> SteveT

If lyx changes to xml it will change to our xml defined format. We still
have control of what we output.

The argument regarding the readability of xml reminds of lots of code
that I see on blogs or any other pages. When I am reading code I expect
it to have a proper indentation, and if possible to be colored, with
enough white spaces and new lines so that the structure emerges just
from reading the code.

Just because some code is legal from a language perspective it does not
mean that we should use it.

The same should happen for the lyx file format. If we go xml I expect
that one of our goals is that output lyx file is friendly towards a line
oriented analysis, I expect that it remains easy for us to diff two lyx
files. The purpose of converting lyx to xml is to add other
conveniences. For example, now how do you decide that a lyx files is
well constructed? Is it to expect that it does not crash lyx? That a
roundtrip from loading and saving the file gives the same output?

Summarizing: if we go with xml the purpose is not to waste all the
knowledge that we had accumulated in the last 17 years but to build over it.

-- 
José Matos

Re: how to install lyx 2.0.5 if you have full miktex 2.9 installed

[Olivier Ripoll]

On 19.12.2012 09:30, Gyorgy SZEIDL wrote:

dear list members and developers,

i would like to make a full installation of lyx 2.0.5
under windows 7 (64bit). your home page does not
offer a possibility for this.


[...]
> if i choose
>
> LyX-2.0.5-Installer-4.exe
>  (~35 MB)
>
> then i am supposed to have an older installation which
> i do not have. (it is also not clear from the description what
> to do with the older installation -- in case you have it.
> if you overwrite it your registry will be full with
> unnecessary things, if you uninstall it first then there is
> no a previous version of lyx on your computer).
>
> a last question: can lyx work together with miktex 2.9 64 bit?

Hi,

If you already have MikTeX installed, just download the small version of 
the installer (not the "bundle").


I am using it and have installed MikTeX / ghostscript independently 
beforehand, hopefully it should work the same for you. And to answer 
your second question, I am using MikTeX 2.9 64 bits (on Windows 7 64 
bits) and it works fine.


So the only difference may be that my MikTeX is 6 months old, the 
installer was "basic-miktex-2.9.4521-x64.exe". Packages are updated 
regularly though. I am not sure what problem you are having ("i am 
supposed to have an older installation"). Perhaps you can tell the 
installer not to care about LaTeX (there's an option for that) and use 
reconfigure (in LyX's "Tools" menu) later.


Best regards,

Olivier




please help.

thank you in advance.

with kind regards
györgy szeidl

-
prof. györgy szeidl
department of mechanics
university of miskolc
3515 miskolc-egyetemváros
hungary
---

how to install lyx 2.0.5 if you have full miktex 2.9 installed

[Gyorgy SZEIDL]

dear list members and developers,

i would like to make a full installation of lyx 2.0.5
under windows 7 (64bit). your home page does not
offer a possibility for this.

if i choose

LyX-2.0.5-Bundle-4.exe 
 (~200 MB)


then i am made to install a basic miktex which i
do not need at all. (as a matter of fact i have a full
miktex (32 bit) installation which i use with winedt 7.0 )

if i choose

LyX-2.0.5-Installer-4.exe 
 (~35 MB)


then i am supposed to have an older installation which
i do not have. (it is also not clear from the description what
to do with the older installation -- in case you have it.
if you overwrite it your registry will be full with
unnecessary things, if you uninstall it first then there is
no a previous version of lyx on your computer).

a last question: can lyx work together with miktex 2.9 64 bit?

please help.

thank you in advance.

with kind regards
györgy szeidl

-
prof. györgy szeidl
department of mechanics
university of miskolc
3515 miskolc-egyetemváros
hungary
---

Re: Would a native LyX XML schema be accepted?

[Rainer M Krug]

On 19/12/12 06:57, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Steve Litt  
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 10:22:17 +0100 Rainer M Krug  wrote:
>>> This all sounds very exciting and extremely useful for import / export / 
>>> collaboration, but
>>> there is one aspect which I would be missing in an XML file: At the moment, 
>>> I can open a
>>> .lyx file with emacs and do change / replace in the .lyx file, when e.g. I 
>>> have moved my
>>> images around. Or changing anything formating consistently throughout the 
>>> text - this is
>>> much more time consuming in LyX itself. So my question: would this new XML 
>>> format mean the
>>> "good bye" to the plain text format of the .lyx file, or would the XML be a 
>>> new parallel,
>>> fully (and I mean fully!) equivalent and exchangeable format in LyX? I know 
>>> that an XML is
>>> also a text file, but at least the ones I looked into were not nearly as 
>>> editable as the
>>> .lyx plain text?
>> 
>> My impression was that Nico was making a converter to convert LyX native 
>> format to XML, *for
>> export*. If anybody is making LyX format any more XML than it already is, I 
>> object
>> strenuously for the exact reason you stated --- I like working on and 
>> diagnosing LyX files in
>> Vim. In the twelve years I've used LyX, its native format has constantly 
>> become harder for a
>> human to deal with.
> 
> That is what I'm doing, plus an XSL to produce .lyx from the XML.
> 
> As for the editability of .lyx vs. XML... well, both are editable in $EDITOR. 
>  And XML benefits
> from the ability to use XPath, XSL, ..., so that if you have such XML tools 
> at hand (and you
> would have to if LyX were to switch to a native XML format) then you'd have a 
> much easier time
> doing programmatic transformations outside LyX than you do with the current 
> .lyx format.
> 
> Also, if LyX were to switch to a native XML format then my script and XSLs 
> could still be used
> to produce old-style .lyx for editing the way you want to.  Such tools would 
> still need to be
> supported for a long time for migration purposes.
> 
>> XML itself is incredibly human-hostile, but its misuse by developers is 
>> astounding. Look at
>> the XML for an OpenOffice file as an example. Probably six different files, 
>> with all sorts of
>> redundant information scattered within those files. If you change something 
>> in one file 
>> without changing its count in another, it simply breaks the file.
> 
> It's not XML that demands "six files".

The question, if the XML representation of LyX can be edited, can only be 
answered when we can
take a look at the format and an example XML. But the point is:

1) Keep the native LyX format and implement the XML as an export / import 
format which is 100%
compatible, e.g. having an option (like the "compressed" setting) so that one 
can choose the XML
format as standard format?

or

2) if LyX is switching completely to the XML format, it *definitely needs to be 
easily editable*
with vim / emacs / $EDITOR

And even if most of us don't use MSWord / LibreOffice (actually would rather 
use emacs / vim /
$EDITOR then MS Word), it would be a very important feature, which has been 
discussed numerous
times, to have a "out of the box" export / import to docx files to make the 
switch to LyX easier
as well the co-operation with word users. This export / import only has to 
support a subset of
features, but if only these are used in the document, the round trip should be 
loss less (I know -
I'm dreaming).

Cheers,

Rainer


> 
>> Then there's the fact that some of us tweak our Lyx files with a Perl, 
>> Python, Ruby or Lua
>> script before actually compiling it. This was easy [...]
> 
> See above!
> 
> Nico --
>