Re: Google Docs to LaTeX
Michael Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear Charles, It is very cool grasping how to use sed in however a primitive way. But on further investigation it seems one needs it for a LyX friendly use of ``writer2latex'' only if the document has tables, math, images ... or French. With a fairly wide but unscientifically chosen variety of English documents, I found that the desiderata of: (a) retaining crucial formatting that an English language Word or OpenOffice or docs.google user would likely employ and: (b) avoiding a demoralizing film of ERT by messing with the preferences in writer2latex.xml. Indeed, the script is not necessary if you edit the writer2latex.xml file in your system, as you've done already. All you need to do is to select the appropriate encoding (latin9 is the most popular, after utf8 for latin writing systems, as you've found out). Personally, I prefer to avoid loading a full Office Suite to make the conversion, so I bypass them by not saving my googledocs papers into word, rtf, or odf. Try saving your GoogleDocs documents as HTML, and then convert them with html2tex. Check http://www.iwriteiam.nl/html2tex.html All you need is a friendly gcc compiler (or a friend to give it to you), and it makes the whole work for you with a simple call to the converter. Perhaps you may have to call html-tidy to cleanup the HTML source a bit, but a simple bash script (or in windows, a bat file) will work. Small is beautiful, Luis.
Re: Google Docs to LaTeX
Michael Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear Charles, It is very cool grasping how to use sed in however a primitive way. But on further investigation it seems one needs it for a LyX friendly use of ``writer2latex'' only if the document has tables, math, images ... or French. With a fairly wide but unscientifically chosen variety of English documents, I found that the desiderata of: (a) retaining crucial formatting that an English language Word or OpenOffice or docs.google user would likely employ and: (b) avoiding a demoralizing film of ERT by messing with the preferences in writer2latex.xml. Indeed, the script is not necessary if you edit the writer2latex.xml file in your system, as you've done already. All you need to do is to select the appropriate encoding (latin9 is the most popular, after utf8 for latin writing systems, as you've found out). Personally, I prefer to avoid loading a full Office Suite to make the conversion, so I bypass them by not saving my googledocs papers into word, rtf, or odf. Try saving your GoogleDocs documents as HTML, and then convert them with html2tex. Check http://www.iwriteiam.nl/html2tex.html All you need is a friendly gcc compiler (or a friend to give it to you), and it makes the whole work for you with a simple call to the converter. Perhaps you may have to call html-tidy to cleanup the HTML source a bit, but a simple bash script (or in windows, a bat file) will work. Small is beautiful, Luis.
Re: Google Docs to LaTeX
Michael Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Dear Charles, > It is very cool grasping how to use sed in however a primitive way. But on > further investigation it seems one needs it for a LyX friendly use of > ``writer2latex'' only if the document has tables, math, images ... or French. > With a fairly wide but unscientifically chosen variety of English documents, I > found that the desiderata of: > (a) retaining crucial formatting that an English language Word or OpenOffice > or > docs.google user would likely employ > and: > (b) avoiding a demoralizing film of ERT > by messing with the preferences in writer2latex.xml. > Indeed, the script is not necessary if you edit the writer2latex.xml file in your system, as you've done already. All you need to do is to select the appropriate encoding (latin9 is the most popular, after utf8 for latin writing systems, as you've found out). Personally, I prefer to avoid loading a full Office Suite to make the conversion, so I bypass them by not saving my googledocs papers into word, rtf, or odf. Try saving your GoogleDocs documents as HTML, and then convert them with html2tex. Check http://www.iwriteiam.nl/html2tex.html All you need is a friendly gcc compiler (or a friend to give it to you), and it makes the whole work for you with a simple call to the converter. Perhaps you may have to call html-tidy to cleanup the HTML source a bit, but a simple bash script (or in windows, a bat file) will work. Small is beautiful, Luis.
Re: spanish-lists
Luis Rivera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If someone can tell me how to contact the author, I'll really appreciate. Got reply in my inbox. Thank you for your attention. Luis.
Re: spanish-lists
Luis Rivera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If someone can tell me how to contact the author, I'll really appreciate. Got reply in my inbox. Thank you for your attention. Luis.
Re: spanish-lists
Luis Rivera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If someone > can tell me how to contact the author, I'll really appreciate. > Got reply in my inbox. Thank you for your attention. Luis.
spanish-lists
Hello! I've been having trouble with lists in spanish, and it seems to me that the documentation spanish-lists.lyx on the wiki may be mistaken in a couple of points. The document doesn't include author or contact information. If someone can tell me how to contact the author, I'll really appreciate. Thanks, Luis.
spanish-lists
Hello! I've been having trouble with lists in spanish, and it seems to me that the documentation spanish-lists.lyx on the wiki may be mistaken in a couple of points. The document doesn't include author or contact information. If someone can tell me how to contact the author, I'll really appreciate. Thanks, Luis.
spanish-lists
Hello! I've been having trouble with lists in spanish, and it seems to me that the documentation spanish-lists.lyx on the wiki may be mistaken in a couple of points. The document doesn't include author or contact information. If someone can tell me how to contact the author, I'll really appreciate. Thanks, Luis.
Re: Name of the Mascot (Was: New splash screen (Was: LyX logo))
curtis osterhoudt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't see that LyXia engenders oral thoughts, though I'd be more strongly inclined to give the program a try if it did! Besides, would this mean that Word users suffer from dysLyXia? If the thread (and vote) are still open, I'd say LyX is just fine; alternative: FeLyX (although a cat would be better then :) On the LyDia/dysLyXia front, why not aLyXia? (although alyxiae seem to be plants rather than animals). My penny contribution, Luis.
Re: Name of the Mascot (Was: New splash screen (Was: LyX logo))
curtis osterhoudt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I don't see that LyXia engenders oral thoughts, though I'd be more strongly inclined to give the program a try if it did! Besides, would this mean that Word users suffer from dysLyXia? If the thread (and vote) are still open, I'd say LyX is just fine; alternative: FeLyX (although a cat would be better then :) On the LyDia/dysLyXia front, why not aLyXia? (although alyxiae seem to be plants rather than animals). My penny contribution, Luis.
Re: Name of the Mascot (Was: New splash screen (Was: LyX logo))
curtis osterhoudt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I don't see that "LyXia" engenders "oral" thoughts, though I'd be more strongly inclined to give the > program a try if it did! Besides, would this mean that Word users suffer from dysLyXia? > If the thread (and vote) are still open, I'd say "LyX" is just fine; alternative: FeLyX (although a cat would be better then :) On the LyDia/dysLyXia front, why not aLyXia? (although alyxiae seem to be plants rather than animals). My penny contribution, Luis.
Re: No accents when mastering a document (Spanish) ??
Miguel Daniel Rodríguez Magarzo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the master, Document Settings Language Spanish, and encoding LaTeX default but into each child document, I have set Language Spanish too, but encoding utf8, with good results. If I switch to utf8 in the master settings, the xdvi preview gives me a lot of warnings about this fact, obviously. Excuse me, but I don't quite follow: you wrote, encoded, and typeset all child documents in UTF8; and when coming to a parent document, you are trying to write, encode and typeset the whole thing again in UTF8, right? You mean, the language settings for all documents are exactly the same, and the LyX process breaks? If that's the case you may have stumbled upon a bug in LyX. Otherwise please recheck and state your case better. You may also help to diagnose the bug trying another encoding. Make two copies and try language default or Latin1 in all documents on each copy and see what happens. Sorry, you have to try. I do child documents with the default encoding (Latin1 IIRC) all the time, without a problem. Good luck, Luis.
Re: No accents when mastering a document (Spanish) ??
Miguel Daniel Rodríguez Magarzo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In the master, Document Settings Language Spanish, and encoding LaTeX default but into each child document, I have set Language Spanish too, but encoding utf8, with good results. If I switch to utf8 in the master settings, the xdvi preview gives me a lot of warnings about this fact, obviously. Excuse me, but I don't quite follow: you wrote, encoded, and typeset all child documents in UTF8; and when coming to a parent document, you are trying to write, encode and typeset the whole thing again in UTF8, right? You mean, the language settings for all documents are exactly the same, and the LyX process breaks? If that's the case you may have stumbled upon a bug in LyX. Otherwise please recheck and state your case better. You may also help to diagnose the bug trying another encoding. Make two copies and try language default or Latin1 in all documents on each copy and see what happens. Sorry, you have to try. I do child documents with the default encoding (Latin1 IIRC) all the time, without a problem. Good luck, Luis.
Re: No accents when mastering a document (Spanish) ??
Miguel Daniel Rodríguez Magarzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In the master, Document > Settings > Language > Spanish, and encoding > "LaTeX default" > but into each child document, I have set Language Spanish too, but > encoding "utf8", with good results. > If I switch to "utf8" in the master settings, the xdvi preview gives me > a lot of warnings about this fact, obviously. > Excuse me, but I don't quite follow: you wrote, encoded, and typeset all child documents in UTF8; and when coming to a parent document, you are trying to write, encode and typeset the whole thing again in UTF8, right? You mean, the language settings for all documents are exactly the same, and the LyX process breaks? If that's the case you may have stumbled upon a bug in LyX. Otherwise please recheck and state your case better. You may also help to diagnose the bug trying another encoding. Make two copies and try "language default" or "Latin1" in all documents on each copy and see what happens. Sorry, you have to try. I do child documents with the default encoding (Latin1 IIRC) all the time, without a problem. Good luck, Luis.
Re: custom document language
G. Milde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 31.03.08, Luis Rivera wrote: Liviu Andronic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Could LyX generate the list of supported languages by looking for *.ldf files in the LaTeX-Configure step? There's not much action on this thread anymore... I'll take this question to the developers. Cheers, Luis.
Re: Babel problem
Stefano Franchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear list,
I cannot convince Babel to use English as default language for date,
Toc,
etc. when I declare additional languages in the preamble.
Try adding \AtBeginDocument{\selectlanguage{english}} to your preamble.
Luis.
Re: custom document language
G. Milde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 31.03.08, Luis Rivera wrote: Liviu Andronic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Could LyX generate the list of supported languages by looking for *.ldf files in the LaTeX-Configure step? There's not much action on this thread anymore... I'll take this question to the developers. Cheers, Luis.
Re: Babel problem
Stefano Franchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear list,
I cannot convince Babel to use English as default language for date,
Toc,
etc. when I declare additional languages in the preamble.
Try adding \AtBeginDocument{\selectlanguage{english}} to your preamble.
Luis.
Re: custom document language
G. Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On 31.03.08, Luis Rivera wrote: > > Liviu Andronic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Could LyX generate the list of supported languages by looking for *.ldf > files in the LaTeX-Configure step? > There's not much action on this thread anymore... I'll take this question to the developers. Cheers, Luis.
Re: Babel problem
Stefano Franchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Dear list,
>
> I cannot convince Babel to use English as default language for date,
> Toc,
> etc. when I declare additional languages in the preamble.
>
Try adding \AtBeginDocument{\selectlanguage{english}} to your preamble.
Luis.
Re: custom document language
G. Milde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 31.03.08, Luis Rivera wrote: Liviu Andronic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does LaTeX support such rarely encountered languages? Liviu It does: provided you supply an appropriately formatted language.ldf file somewhere in your TEXPATH. Could LyX generate the list of supported languages by looking for *.ldf files in the LaTeX-Configure step? I guess it could, but I foresee two drawbacks: 1. Not all languages in Babel's kernel are defined in independent ldf files (all variations of french, portuguese, and english share a common ldf, IIRC; they apply different sets of specifications defined in babel.def); 2. You need to read/write these lists somewhere in LyX path, so you need to add an extra module to read/write a file containing this list of languages and display them in LyX menus. This requires a rewrite of this routine in LyX guts, and that's developers job. Somewhere in between might be ideal: specify this read/write routine, define the languages in Babel kernel as default, and add all undefined languages by ldf files via LaTeX-Configure. In any event, this route will require developer attention. Luis.
Re: custom document language
G. Milde [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 31.03.08, Luis Rivera wrote: Liviu Andronic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does LaTeX support such rarely encountered languages? Liviu It does: provided you supply an appropriately formatted language.ldf file somewhere in your TEXPATH. Could LyX generate the list of supported languages by looking for *.ldf files in the LaTeX-Configure step? I guess it could, but I foresee two drawbacks: 1. Not all languages in Babel's kernel are defined in independent ldf files (all variations of french, portuguese, and english share a common ldf, IIRC; they apply different sets of specifications defined in babel.def); 2. You need to read/write these lists somewhere in LyX path, so you need to add an extra module to read/write a file containing this list of languages and display them in LyX menus. This requires a rewrite of this routine in LyX guts, and that's developers job. Somewhere in between might be ideal: specify this read/write routine, define the languages in Babel kernel as default, and add all undefined languages by ldf files via LaTeX-Configure. In any event, this route will require developer attention. Luis.
Re: custom document language
G. Milde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On 31.03.08, Luis Rivera wrote: > > Liviu Andronic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > > Does LaTeX support such rarely encountered languages? > > > Liviu > > > > > It does: provided you supply an appropriately formatted .ldf file > > somewhere in your TEXPATH. > > Could LyX generate the list of supported languages by looking for *.ldf > files in the LaTeX-Configure step? > I guess it could, but I foresee two drawbacks: 1. Not all languages in Babel's kernel are defined in independent ldf files (all variations of french, portuguese, and english share a common ldf, IIRC; they apply different sets of specifications defined in babel.def); 2. You need to read/write these lists somewhere in LyX path, so you need to add an extra module to read/write a file containing this list of languages and display them in LyX menus. This requires a rewrite of this routine in LyX guts, and that's developers job. Somewhere in between might be ideal: specify this read/write routine, define the languages in Babel kernel as default, and add all undefined languages by ldf files via LaTeX-Configure. In any event, this route will require developer attention. Luis.
Re: custom document language
Uwe Stöhr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Luis Rivera schrieb:
Hñat-ho.
I might need some other native languages from Mexico (Nahuatl, Cora,
Huichol,
Purepecha and Tarahumara are up in my to-do list as well).
LaTeX doesn't have a package that supports these languages. What you need is
a package that provides
translations of words like Part, a package that provides correct
hyphenation, and perhaps also a
spellchecker.
Indeed, Babel provides support for them; all you need to do is to write an
appropriate language.ldf file, put it somewhere in your texmf path, and add
it to the argument in the \usepackage[languages]{babel} command. It's not
hard once you know how to do it. Redneck is only an example :)
I may attack the hyphenation problem with mkpattern, from CTAN, and build some
word and affix lists for hunspell for the text editor.
One thing at a time, however...
Even OpenOffice don't offer this and this the program with the best language
support I know.
I don't know. Perhaps it can: it may not provide an interface to the program,
but I'm positive you may add more locales to the dictionary.lst
in /share/dict/ooo. All you need to do is to have the appropriate hunspell
files.
Cheers,
Luis.
Re: custom document language
Liviu Andronic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does LaTeX support such rarely encountered languages? Liviu It does: provided you supply an appropriately formatted language.ldf file somewhere in your TEXPATH. Luis.
Re: custom document language
Uwe Stöhr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Luis Rivera schrieb:
Hñat-ho.
I might need some other native languages from Mexico (Nahuatl, Cora,
Huichol,
Purepecha and Tarahumara are up in my to-do list as well).
LaTeX doesn't have a package that supports these languages. What you need is
a package that provides
translations of words like Part, a package that provides correct
hyphenation, and perhaps also a
spellchecker.
Indeed, Babel provides support for them; all you need to do is to write an
appropriate language.ldf file, put it somewhere in your texmf path, and add
it to the argument in the \usepackage[languages]{babel} command. It's not
hard once you know how to do it. Redneck is only an example :)
I may attack the hyphenation problem with mkpattern, from CTAN, and build some
word and affix lists for hunspell for the text editor.
One thing at a time, however...
Even OpenOffice don't offer this and this the program with the best language
support I know.
I don't know. Perhaps it can: it may not provide an interface to the program,
but I'm positive you may add more locales to the dictionary.lst
in /share/dict/ooo. All you need to do is to have the appropriate hunspell
files.
Cheers,
Luis.
Re: custom document language
Liviu Andronic [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does LaTeX support such rarely encountered languages? Liviu It does: provided you supply an appropriately formatted language.ldf file somewhere in your TEXPATH. Luis.
Re: custom document language
Uwe Stöhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Luis Rivera schrieb:
>
> > Hñat-ho.
> > I might need some other native languages from Mexico (Nahuatl, Cora,
Huichol,
> > Purepecha and Tarahumara are up in my to-do list as well).
>
> LaTeX doesn't have a package that supports these languages. What you need is
a package that provides
> translations of words like "Part", a package that provides correct
hyphenation, and perhaps also a
> spellchecker.
Indeed, Babel provides support for them; all you need to do is to write an
appropriate .ldf file, put it somewhere in your texmf path, and add
it to the argument in the \usepackage[]{babel} command. It's not
hard once you know how to do it. "Redneck" is only an example :)
I may attack the hyphenation problem with mkpattern, from CTAN, and build some
word and affix lists for hunspell for the text editor.
One thing at a time, however...
> Even OpenOffice don't offer this and this the program with the best language
support I know.
>
I don't know. Perhaps it can: it may not provide an interface to the program,
but I'm positive you may add more locales to the dictionary.lst
in /share/dict/ooo. All you need to do is to have the appropriate hunspell
files.
Cheers,
Luis.
Re: custom document language
Liviu Andronic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Does LaTeX support such rarely encountered languages? > Liviu > It does: provided you supply an appropriately formatted .ldf file somewhere in your TEXPATH. Luis.
Re: custom document language
Uwe Stöhr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Luis Rivera schrieb: How can I pick a language for a document not included in the drop-down menu from LyX? I want to typeset a document in a language not included, and I can't figure out how to include it. This is not easily possible. LyX supports nearly all languages suppoterd by the babel package and other available language packages. In the next version, LyX will additionally support Albanian, Bahasa Malaysia / Bahasa Melayu, Interlingua, Latin, Lower Sorbian, Serbian (Cyrillic and Latin letters), North Sami, and Vietnamese. What is the language you need? Hñat-ho. Got you? :) I might need some other native languages from Mexico (Nahuatl, Cora, Huichol, Purepecha and Tarahumara are up in my to-do list as well). As you see, I may be asking for a far more general solution, and I prefer not to ask to have them all included in hard-coded menus. It wouldn't be functional for all 7589 languages in ISO 639-3. Cheers, Luis.
Re: custom document language
Uwe Stöhr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Luis Rivera schrieb: How can I pick a language for a document not included in the drop-down menu from LyX? I want to typeset a document in a language not included, and I can't figure out how to include it. This is not easily possible. LyX supports nearly all languages suppoterd by the babel package and other available language packages. In the next version, LyX will additionally support Albanian, Bahasa Malaysia / Bahasa Melayu, Interlingua, Latin, Lower Sorbian, Serbian (Cyrillic and Latin letters), North Sami, and Vietnamese. What is the language you need? Hñat-ho. Got you? :) I might need some other native languages from Mexico (Nahuatl, Cora, Huichol, Purepecha and Tarahumara are up in my to-do list as well). As you see, I may be asking for a far more general solution, and I prefer not to ask to have them all included in hard-coded menus. It wouldn't be functional for all 7589 languages in ISO 639-3. Cheers, Luis.
Re: custom document language
Uwe Stöhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Luis Rivera schrieb: > > > How can I pick a language for a document not included in the drop-down menu from > > LyX? I want to typeset a document in a language not included, and I can't figure > > out how to include it. > > This is not easily possible. LyX supports nearly all languages suppoterd > by the babel package and > other available language packages. In the next version, LyX will > additionally support Albanian, > Bahasa Malaysia / Bahasa Melayu, Interlingua, Latin, Lower Sorbian, > Serbian (Cyrillic and Latin letters), North Sami, and Vietnamese. > What is the language you need? > Hñat-ho. Got you? :) I might need some other native languages from Mexico (Nahuatl, Cora, Huichol, Purepecha and Tarahumara are up in my to-do list as well). As you see, I may be asking for a far more general solution, and I prefer not to ask to have them all included in hard-coded menus. It wouldn't be functional for all 7589 languages in ISO 639-3. Cheers, Luis.
custom document language
Hello! I tried to find info about this topic, without much success... How can I pick a language for a document not included in the drop-down menu from LyX? I want to typeset a document in a language not included, and I can't figure out how to include it. Please notice that I don't want to ADD a custom language to a preset one: I want to use a language not included in the menu as the only and main language. Thanks in advance, Luis.
custom document language
Hello! I tried to find info about this topic, without much success... How can I pick a language for a document not included in the drop-down menu from LyX? I want to typeset a document in a language not included, and I can't figure out how to include it. Please notice that I don't want to ADD a custom language to a preset one: I want to use a language not included in the menu as the only and main language. Thanks in advance, Luis.
custom document language
Hello! I tried to find info about this topic, without much success... How can I pick a language for a document not included in the drop-down menu from LyX? I want to typeset a document in a language not included, and I can't figure out how to include it. Please notice that I don't want to ADD a custom language to a preset one: I want to use a language not included in the menu as the only and main language. Thanks in advance, Luis.
Re: Replacing Natbib with Custom BibStyle (WAS: changing bibliography style in layouts)
Luis Rivera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip] I found that I can use makebst generated bibtex styles with LyX's
(presumably) hardcoded \usepackage[...]{natbib} command, provided they use the
standard natbib macros: that's so because the \bibliographystyle declaration
may be adjusted in the document's preamble.
Indeed, oxon is somewhat of a weird bird: it has harvard as background, yet it
uses only the plain \cite command; so I found I can get my job done using the
standard citations provided by LyX.
Thanks to the makebst and LyX developers.
Luis.
Re: Replacing Natbib with Custom BibStyle (WAS: changing bibliography style in layouts)
Luis Rivera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[snip] I found that I can use makebst generated bibtex styles with LyX's
(presumably) hardcoded \usepackage[...]{natbib} command, provided they use the
standard natbib macros: that's so because the \bibliographystyle declaration
may be adjusted in the document's preamble.
Indeed, oxon is somewhat of a weird bird: it has harvard as background, yet it
uses only the plain \cite command; so I found I can get my job done using the
standard citations provided by LyX.
Thanks to the makebst and LyX developers.
Luis.
Re: Replacing Natbib with Custom BibStyle (WAS: changing bibliography style in layouts)
Luis Rivera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [snip] I found that I can use makebst generated bibtex styles with LyX's
> (presumably) hardcoded \usepackage[...]{natbib} command, provided they use the
> "standard" natbib macros: that's so because the \bibliographystyle declaration
> may be adjusted in the document's preamble.
>
Indeed, oxon is somewhat of a weird bird: it has harvard as background, yet it
uses only the plain \cite command; so I found I can get my job done using the
standard citations provided by LyX.
Thanks to the makebst and LyX developers.
Luis.
Re: Replacing Natbib with Custom BibStyle (WAS: changing bibliography style in layouts)
Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here are some hacks.
* Try loading oxon.sty from the preamble, hoping this is after
natbib.sty is loaded. Of course, as things are, LaTeX will
complain about your redefinitions. But perhaps you could change
the ones you redefine to \renewcommand. Or would \newcommand*
work? Anyway, something along these lines could be done.
* Export to LaTeX and make the change manually. But then you lose
preview.
* Weird idea: Redefine the LaTeX - DVI converter to pass your file
through sed or something first, thus changing the
\usepackage{natbib} line into \usepackage{oxon}. I don't know
that this will work, but it might.
I knew about options 1 and 2; (1) is a kludge, unless I come up with the exact
opposite to \ProvideCommand, namely, if a command is already defined, renew it;
otherwise, define it; (2) indeed makes preview impossible, so it's a non-option.
Your weird idea (3) is not that weird, but it requires fiddling with the
standard preview process; something I'm not ready to do, since my problem is
pretty local---I don't want to go through the sed/awk/perl/gema script for all
my files. So, in a way, it is also a kludge.
It occurred to me that saving oxon.sty (not oxon.bst) as natbib.sty in my source
file directory may do the trick: since my TeX installation searches the current
directory first, the first file's definitions discard any other version of the
file in the system; but that's also a kludge, since I have to rename/copy
oxon.sty, and thus I multiply entities without necessity.
If \usepackage[...]{natbib} is indeed hardcoded, I'm pretty screwed.
Any thoughts from the real experts?
By the way, I found that I can use makebst generated bibtex styles with LyX's
(presumably) hardcoded \usepackage[...]{natbib} command, provided they use the
standard natbib macros: that's so because the \bibliographystyle declaration
may be adjusted in the document's preamble.
By the way, I'd be interested to see oxon.sty, if you're sharing. I've
played some with BibTeX as well.
Let me debug it first: there is one little thing it still doesn't do; but if you
don't mind being a beta tester, let me know.
Luis.
Re: Help: Multiple entries in author-year citation
Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a limitation of BibTeX and, more generally, of the citation
system used in LaTeX. It would, I believe, be possible to write a
bibliography package that resolved it, but that would be a non-trivial
undertaking, to say the least.
The way out is a hack. Use natbib, so you can select reference formats,
and insert three separate references with author and year /but no
parentheses/. Then insert the parentheses yourself around the three
references.
In other words, you should use (\citealt[pp~1--20]{doc1},
\citealt[pp~1--10]{doc2}, \citealt[pp~3--50]{doc3})---you *must* provide the
parentheses. However, you may choose the appropriate format for *each* citation
using LyX's menu.
The problem is that the optional argument for \cite is common to all references
included by the same command, so there is no way to split them apart, afaik.
Richard is right: this is not a bug, but a limitation in design.
There is one biblatex package in the making, trying to supersede BibTeX's
limitations. You may request a feature like that in comp.text.tex
Good luck,
Luis.
Re: Importing word documents to Lyx
Bhaskaran, Sreekumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does anyone know how to import word documents into Lyx? The Only Way is via LaTeX: you convert your MSWord document to LaTeX (via rtf2latex, OpenDocument, or the MSWord plugin Word2TeX, or any other way you like), and then import to LyX via tex2lyx. More info in CTAN http://www.tug.org/utilities/texconv/pctotex.html Luis.
Re: Replacing Natbib with Custom BibStyle (WAS: changing bibliography style in layouts)
Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Here are some hacks.
* Try loading oxon.sty from the preamble, hoping this is after
natbib.sty is loaded. Of course, as things are, LaTeX will
complain about your redefinitions. But perhaps you could change
the ones you redefine to \renewcommand. Or would \newcommand*
work? Anyway, something along these lines could be done.
* Export to LaTeX and make the change manually. But then you lose
preview.
* Weird idea: Redefine the LaTeX - DVI converter to pass your file
through sed or something first, thus changing the
\usepackage{natbib} line into \usepackage{oxon}. I don't know
that this will work, but it might.
I knew about options 1 and 2; (1) is a kludge, unless I come up with the exact
opposite to \ProvideCommand, namely, if a command is already defined, renew it;
otherwise, define it; (2) indeed makes preview impossible, so it's a non-option.
Your weird idea (3) is not that weird, but it requires fiddling with the
standard preview process; something I'm not ready to do, since my problem is
pretty local---I don't want to go through the sed/awk/perl/gema script for all
my files. So, in a way, it is also a kludge.
It occurred to me that saving oxon.sty (not oxon.bst) as natbib.sty in my source
file directory may do the trick: since my TeX installation searches the current
directory first, the first file's definitions discard any other version of the
file in the system; but that's also a kludge, since I have to rename/copy
oxon.sty, and thus I multiply entities without necessity.
If \usepackage[...]{natbib} is indeed hardcoded, I'm pretty screwed.
Any thoughts from the real experts?
By the way, I found that I can use makebst generated bibtex styles with LyX's
(presumably) hardcoded \usepackage[...]{natbib} command, provided they use the
standard natbib macros: that's so because the \bibliographystyle declaration
may be adjusted in the document's preamble.
By the way, I'd be interested to see oxon.sty, if you're sharing. I've
played some with BibTeX as well.
Let me debug it first: there is one little thing it still doesn't do; but if you
don't mind being a beta tester, let me know.
Luis.
Re: Help: Multiple entries in author-year citation
Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is a limitation of BibTeX and, more generally, of the citation
system used in LaTeX. It would, I believe, be possible to write a
bibliography package that resolved it, but that would be a non-trivial
undertaking, to say the least.
The way out is a hack. Use natbib, so you can select reference formats,
and insert three separate references with author and year /but no
parentheses/. Then insert the parentheses yourself around the three
references.
In other words, you should use (\citealt[pp~1--20]{doc1},
\citealt[pp~1--10]{doc2}, \citealt[pp~3--50]{doc3})---you *must* provide the
parentheses. However, you may choose the appropriate format for *each* citation
using LyX's menu.
The problem is that the optional argument for \cite is common to all references
included by the same command, so there is no way to split them apart, afaik.
Richard is right: this is not a bug, but a limitation in design.
There is one biblatex package in the making, trying to supersede BibTeX's
limitations. You may request a feature like that in comp.text.tex
Good luck,
Luis.
Re: Importing word documents to Lyx
Bhaskaran, Sreekumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does anyone know how to import word documents into Lyx? The Only Way is via LaTeX: you convert your MSWord document to LaTeX (via rtf2latex, OpenDocument, or the MSWord plugin Word2TeX, or any other way you like), and then import to LyX via tex2lyx. More info in CTAN http://www.tug.org/utilities/texconv/pctotex.html Luis.
Re: Replacing Natbib with Custom BibStyle (WAS: changing bibliography style in layouts)
Richard Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Here are some hacks.
>
> * Try loading oxon.sty from the preamble, hoping this is after
> natbib.sty is loaded. Of course, as things are, LaTeX will
> complain about your redefinitions. But perhaps you could change
> the ones you redefine to \renewcommand. Or would \newcommand*
> work? Anyway, something along these lines could be done.
> * Export to LaTeX and make the change manually. But then you lose
> preview.
> * Weird idea: Redefine the LaTeX -> DVI converter to pass your file
> through sed or something first, thus changing the
> "\usepackage{natbib}" line into "\usepackage{oxon}". I don't know
> that this will work, but it might.
>
I knew about options 1 and 2; (1) is a kludge, unless I come up with the exact
opposite to \ProvideCommand, namely, if a command is already defined, renew it;
otherwise, define it; (2) indeed makes preview impossible, so it's a non-option.
Your "weird" idea (3) is not that weird, but it requires fiddling with the
"standard" preview process; something I'm not ready to do, since my problem is
pretty local---I don't want to go through the sed/awk/perl/gema script for all
my files. So, in a way, it is also a kludge.
It occurred to me that saving oxon.sty (not oxon.bst) as natbib.sty in my source
file directory may do the trick: since my TeX installation searches the current
directory first, the first file's definitions discard any other version of the
file in the system; but that's also a kludge, since I have to rename/copy
oxon.sty, and thus I multiply entities without necessity.
If \usepackage[...]{natbib} is indeed hardcoded, I'm pretty screwed.
Any thoughts from the real experts?
By the way, I found that I can use makebst generated bibtex styles with LyX's
(presumably) hardcoded \usepackage[...]{natbib} command, provided they use the
"standard" natbib macros: that's so because the \bibliographystyle declaration
may be adjusted in the document's preamble.
>
> By the way, I'd be interested to see oxon.sty, if you're sharing. I've
> played some with BibTeX as well.
>
Let me debug it first: there is one little thing it still doesn't do; but if you
don't mind being a beta tester, let me know.
Luis.
Re: Help: Multiple entries in author-year citation
Richard Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> This is a limitation of BibTeX and, more generally, of the citation
> system used in LaTeX. It would, I believe, be possible to write a
> bibliography package that resolved it, but that would be a non-trivial
> undertaking, to say the least.
>
> The way out is a hack. Use natbib, so you can select reference formats,
> and insert three separate references with author and year /but no
> parentheses/. Then insert the parentheses yourself around the three
> references.
>
In other words, you should use (\citealt[pp~1--20]{doc1},
\citealt[pp~1--10]{doc2}, \citealt[pp~3--50]{doc3})---you *must* provide the
parentheses. However, you may choose the appropriate format for *each* citation
using LyX's menu.
The problem is that the optional argument for \cite is common to all references
included by the same command, so there is no way to split them apart, afaik.
Richard is right: this is not a bug, but a limitation in design.
There is one biblatex package in the making, trying to supersede BibTeX's
limitations. You may request a feature like that in comp.text.tex
Good luck,
Luis.
Re: Importing word documents to Lyx
Bhaskaran, Sreekumar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Does anyone know how to import word documents into Lyx? > The Only Way is via LaTeX: you convert your MSWord document to LaTeX (via rtf2latex, OpenDocument, or the MSWord plugin Word2TeX, or any other way you like), and then import to LyX via tex2lyx. More info in CTAN http://www.tug.org/utilities/texconv/pctotex.html Luis.
Re: changing bibliography style in layouts
Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure I understand what it is you want to do. Do you want LyX to
export \usepackage{oxon} instead of \usepackage{natbib}?
Indeed, this is what I'm trying to do. The main problem is that I redefined
some commands from natbib to achieve some results in the \cite=ations in the
body of the document; loading \usepackage{natbib} load the previous
definitions, so that my \newcommand's are ignored.
Or do you
just want to use oxon.sty with natbib the way you might use, say,
apalike.sty with natbib?
I've never tried apalike.sty with natbib, so I don't know what happens here.
Can I achieve the same results?
I hope the clarification is informative.
Luis.
Re: changing bibliography style in layouts
Richard Heck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm not sure I understand what it is you want to do. Do you want LyX to
export \usepackage{oxon} instead of \usepackage{natbib}?
Indeed, this is what I'm trying to do. The main problem is that I redefined
some commands from natbib to achieve some results in the \cite=ations in the
body of the document; loading \usepackage{natbib} load the previous
definitions, so that my \newcommand's are ignored.
Or do you
just want to use oxon.sty with natbib the way you might use, say,
apalike.sty with natbib?
I've never tried apalike.sty with natbib, so I don't know what happens here.
Can I achieve the same results?
I hope the clarification is informative.
Luis.
Re: changing bibliography style in layouts
Richard Heck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> I'm not sure I understand what it is you want to do. Do you want LyX to
> export "\usepackage{oxon}" instead of "\usepackage{natbib}"?
Indeed, this is what I'm trying to do. The main problem is that I redefined
some commands from natbib to achieve some results in the \cite=ations in the
body of the document; loading \usepackage{natbib} load the previous
definitions, so that my \newcommand's are ignored.
> Or do you
> just want to use oxon.sty with natbib the way you might use, say,
> apalike.sty with natbib?
>
I've never tried apalike.sty with natbib, so I don't know what happens here.
Can I achieve the same results?
I hope the clarification is informative.
Luis.
changing bibliography style in layouts
Hello, I wrote my own bibliography package (no kidding), following (freely) natbib; now I want to use LyX's natbib layout, but with my own sty/bst. I browsed around the /layout directory, without figuring out where are the bibliography options stored, so that I can adjust LyX's native natbib support, but now calling my own package/bibstyle (its name is oxon, if that info is useful). Thanks. Luis.
changing bibliography style in layouts
Hello, I wrote my own bibliography package (no kidding), following (freely) natbib; now I want to use LyX's natbib layout, but with my own sty/bst. I browsed around the /layout directory, without figuring out where are the bibliography options stored, so that I can adjust LyX's native natbib support, but now calling my own package/bibstyle (its name is oxon, if that info is useful). Thanks. Luis.
changing bibliography style in layouts
Hello, I wrote my own bibliography package (no kidding), following (freely) natbib; now I want to use LyX's natbib layout, but with my own sty/bst. I browsed around the /layout directory, without figuring out where are the bibliography options stored, so that I can adjust LyX's "native" natbib support, but now calling my own package/bibstyle (its name is "oxon", if that info is useful). Thanks. Luis.
lyx 1.3.5 win98 localization
Dear List, I wonder whether someone has managed to set up localization on LyX 1.3.5 on Win98. If you did, please, tell me how to. Luis. === Please avoid sending me Word, Excel, or PowerPoint attachments. Word, Excel, and PowerPoint files are unreliable, unmaintainable, and unsafe. Try some open format instead. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/open_format J.L.Rivera __ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
lyx 1.3.5 win98 localization
Dear List, I wonder whether someone has managed to set up localization on LyX 1.3.5 on Win98. If you did, please, tell me how to. Luis. === Please avoid sending me Word, Excel, or PowerPoint attachments. Word, Excel, and PowerPoint files are unreliable, unmaintainable, and unsafe. Try some open format instead. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/open_format J.L.Rivera __ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
lyx 1.3.5 win98 localization
Dear List, I wonder whether someone has managed to set up localization on LyX 1.3.5 on Win98. If you did, please, tell me how to. Luis. === Please avoid sending me Word, Excel, or PowerPoint attachments. Word, Excel, and PowerPoint files are unreliable, unmaintainable, and unsafe. Try some open format instead. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/open_format J.L.Rivera __ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: Book of short stories
Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi all,
I'm about to publish a book of short stories. I want a table of contents with
the page number of each story. I don't want to have Chapter or a chapter
number, because each story stands on its own. What document class should I
use? What environment should I use to head up each short story?
Thanks
Steve
AFAIK, there is a \chapter*{} command in LaTeX which typesets the title without
the \chaptername or number. This command should be available in the styles
menus of LyX; it's called `chapter*'. That's the quick-and-dirty solution.
Indeed, memoir (the package I know) allows you to customize pretty much
everything, and it seems like a good tutorial in book design. I don't know how
deep you want to dig into that to typeset your book. If you don't feel you want
too much, try simply using \chapter*{}.
You may have to add some ERT manually to add the chaptername in the
Table-of-Contents. Read the help file for LaTeX to see how to do that.
Good luck,
Luis.
Re: Book of short stories
Steve Litt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi all,
I'm about to publish a book of short stories. I want a table of contents with
the page number of each story. I don't want to have Chapter or a chapter
number, because each story stands on its own. What document class should I
use? What environment should I use to head up each short story?
Thanks
Steve
AFAIK, there is a \chapter*{} command in LaTeX which typesets the title without
the \chaptername or number. This command should be available in the styles
menus of LyX; it's called `chapter*'. That's the quick-and-dirty solution.
Indeed, memoir (the package I know) allows you to customize pretty much
everything, and it seems like a good tutorial in book design. I don't know how
deep you want to dig into that to typeset your book. If you don't feel you want
too much, try simply using \chapter*{}.
You may have to add some ERT manually to add the chaptername in the
Table-of-Contents. Read the help file for LaTeX to see how to do that.
Good luck,
Luis.
Re: Book of short stories
Steve Litt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm about to publish a book of short stories. I want a table of contents with
> the page number of each story. I don't want to have "Chapter" or a chapter
> number, because each story stands on its own. What document class should I
> use? What environment should I use to head up each short story?
>
> Thanks
>
> Steve
>
AFAIK, there is a \chapter*{} command in LaTeX which typesets the title without
the \chaptername or number. This command should be available in the styles
menus of LyX; it's called `chapter*'. That's the quick-and-dirty solution.
Indeed, memoir (the package I know) allows you to customize pretty much
everything, and it seems like a good tutorial in book design. I don't know how
deep you want to dig into that to typeset your book. If you don't feel you want
too much, try simply using \chapter*{}.
You may have to add some ERT manually to add the chaptername in the
Table-of-Contents. Read the help file for LaTeX to see how to do that.
Good luck,
Luis.
Re: lyx to OO conversion tool?
From: Andre Berger [EMAIL PROTECTED] For an easy conversion, put these into your LyX preferences file: \converter latex sxw oolatex $$i latex \format sxw sxw OpenOffice \viewer sxw open The viewer may need to be something other than open, depending on your environment. mike \converter and \format seem to work like a charm... however, I see no point in setting ooosxw as a \viewer. It's like setting a viewer for `LaTeX': the natural viewer for LyX is xdvi (or yap, or whatever). Thanks for the suggestion. Luis.
Re: lyx to OO conversion tool?
From: Andre Berger [EMAIL PROTECTED] For an easy conversion, put these into your LyX preferences file: \converter latex sxw oolatex $$i latex \format sxw sxw OpenOffice \viewer sxw open The viewer may need to be something other than open, depending on your environment. mike \converter and \format seem to work like a charm... however, I see no point in setting ooosxw as a \viewer. It's like setting a viewer for `LaTeX': the natural viewer for LyX is xdvi (or yap, or whatever). Thanks for the suggestion. Luis.
Re: lyx to OO conversion tool?
> > From: Andre Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > For an "easy" conversion, put these into your LyX preferences file: > > > > \converter "latex" "sxw" "oolatex $$i" "latex" > > \format "sxw" "sxw" "OpenOffice" "" > > \viewer "sxw" "open" > > The viewer may need to be something other than "open", depending on > your environment. > >
Re: lyx to OO conversion tool?
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Nicol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
Can someone please point me to a tool that will convert a LyX document
to a soffice document, no matter how rough the tool is?
When I asked this earli this month, the only thing that came up was
tex4ht. I tried it, but it didn't do a very good job for me.
mike
Hello,
I tried it, and it worked for me... sort of.
There is an explicit batch file called `oolatex' in the tex4ht distribution. It
is basically a shortcut for `htlatex filename xhtml,ooffice -coo'. It
does a pretty good job on most documents, though you may have to fiddle a little
with the tex4ht.env file, since there are two variations of the `oo' section of
the script. Some work in some systems, some do work in others. There are
instructions in the tex4ht.env file itself.
So, first, export your LyX file into LaTeX. Then install a recent tex4ht
system, and run `oolatex yourfile'.
CAVEAT: some stuff in the LaTeX preamble makes oolatex stumble. You may have to
edit the LaTeX file a little to ensure oolatex will digest it. Moreover, I
found the oolatex script faulty in processing the {array} environment. I think
this is a serious bug, and I'm finding out if it has been fixed. But if you
don't use this environment a lot, or simply ignore the error messages (typing `r
'every time TeX complains about it), it may be safe to say that the script
should work.
Good luck and happy LyX/OOOfing!
Luis.
Re: Open, take two
Andre Berger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2005-09-19 08:20 +0200: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andre Berger [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: * Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2005-09-19 06:40 +0200: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: [...] And under OS X, it's called open, but it's not as powerful as what I've written. Give it a different name to avoid unnecessary confusion. Got any suggestions? opening? A phantasy name? -Andre What about a neologism? `poopen', short for `pop-up-open'? (Ain't there a C function called `popen'?) Perhaps `foopen' (file-open)? That's something the PHP `fopen' function is supposed to do, right? Anyway, 'twas just a suggestion. Luis.
Re: Open, take two
Luis Rivera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Got any suggestions? opening? A phantasy name? -Andre What about a neologism? [...] On second thought, I checked other options, and `fopen' seems like a good choice. Basically, you made the fopen() function [available in different languages, from C to python] into a tool. I don't know if that makes it unavailable, but it seems quite self-explanatory. Moreover, the other two suggestions look a little bit like bad words... sorry! Luis.
Re: lyx to OO conversion tool?
Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Nicol
[EMAIL PROTECTED] typed:
Can someone please point me to a tool that will convert a LyX document
to a soffice document, no matter how rough the tool is?
When I asked this earli this month, the only thing that came up was
tex4ht. I tried it, but it didn't do a very good job for me.
mike
Hello,
I tried it, and it worked for me... sort of.
There is an explicit batch file called `oolatex' in the tex4ht distribution. It
is basically a shortcut for `htlatex filename xhtml,ooffice -coo'. It
does a pretty good job on most documents, though you may have to fiddle a little
with the tex4ht.env file, since there are two variations of the `oo' section of
the script. Some work in some systems, some do work in others. There are
instructions in the tex4ht.env file itself.
So, first, export your LyX file into LaTeX. Then install a recent tex4ht
system, and run `oolatex yourfile'.
CAVEAT: some stuff in the LaTeX preamble makes oolatex stumble. You may have to
edit the LaTeX file a little to ensure oolatex will digest it. Moreover, I
found the oolatex script faulty in processing the {array} environment. I think
this is a serious bug, and I'm finding out if it has been fixed. But if you
don't use this environment a lot, or simply ignore the error messages (typing `r
'every time TeX complains about it), it may be safe to say that the script
should work.
Good luck and happy LyX/OOOfing!
Luis.
Re: Open, take two
Andre Berger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2005-09-19 08:20 +0200: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Andre Berger [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: * Mike Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED], 2005-09-19 06:40 +0200: In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] typed: [...] And under OS X, it's called open, but it's not as powerful as what I've written. Give it a different name to avoid unnecessary confusion. Got any suggestions? opening? A phantasy name? -Andre What about a neologism? `poopen', short for `pop-up-open'? (Ain't there a C function called `popen'?) Perhaps `foopen' (file-open)? That's something the PHP `fopen' function is supposed to do, right? Anyway, 'twas just a suggestion. Luis.
Re: Open, take two
Luis Rivera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Got any suggestions? opening? A phantasy name? -Andre What about a neologism? [...] On second thought, I checked other options, and `fopen' seems like a good choice. Basically, you made the fopen() function [available in different languages, from C to python] into a tool. I don't know if that makes it unavailable, but it seems quite self-explanatory. Moreover, the other two suggestions look a little bit like bad words... sorry! Luis.
Re: lyx to OO conversion tool?
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Nicol
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> > Can someone please point me to a tool that will convert a LyX document
> > to a soffice document, no matter how rough the tool is?
>
> When I asked this earli this month, the only thing that came up was
> tex4ht. I tried it, but it didn't do a very good job for me.
>
> filename< "xhtml,ooffice" " -coo"'. It
does a pretty good job on most documents, though you may have to fiddle a little
with the tex4ht.env file, since there are two variations of the `oo' section of
the script. Some work in some systems, some do work in others. There are
instructions in the tex4ht.env file itself.
So, first, export your LyX file into LaTeX. Then install a recent tex4ht
system, and run `oolatex >yourfile<'.
CAVEAT: some stuff in the LaTeX preamble makes oolatex stumble. You may have to
edit the LaTeX file a little to ensure oolatex will digest it. Moreover, I
found the oolatex script faulty in processing the {array} environment. I think
this is a serious bug, and I'm finding out if it has been fixed. But if you
don't use this environment a lot, or simply ignore the error messages (typing `r
'every time TeX complains about it), it may be safe to say that the script
should work.
Good luck and happy LyX/OOOfing!
Luis.
Re: Open, take two
Andre Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > * Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2005-09-19 08:20 +0200: > > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andre Berger > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed: > > > * Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > 2005-09-19 06:40 +0200: > > > > In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bo Peng > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed: > > > [...] > > > > And under OS X, it's called open, but it's not as powerful as what > > > > I've written. > > > Give it a different name to avoid unnecessary confusion. > > > > Got any suggestions? > > "opening"? A phantasy name? > > -Andre > > What about a neologism? `poopen', short for `pop-up-open'? (Ain't there a C function called `popen'?) Perhaps `foopen' (file-open)? That's something the PHP `fopen' function is supposed to do, right? Anyway, 'twas just a suggestion. Luis.
Re: Open, take two
Luis Rivera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Got any suggestions? > > > > "opening"? A phantasy name? > > > > -Andre > > > > > > What about a neologism? [...] > On second thought, I checked other options, and `fopen' seems like a good choice. Basically, you made the fopen() function [available in different languages, from C to python] into a tool. I don't know if that makes it unavailable, but it seems quite self-explanatory. Moreover, the other two suggestions look a little bit like bad words... sorry! Luis.
Re: Any successes w/ LyX 1.3.6 for Windows 98SE
Quoting William F. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The install keeps crashing on me --- where should I send the crash log? Or should I give up until I'm running something made in this century? It's not just that: I tried to copy/paste one working copy of LyX 1.3.6.1 from WinXP to Win98, making some adjustments to the paths, and it stopped working. There seems to be some bad call to kernel32.dll. Perhaps there is a deeper bug. What should I send to the developers? Luis. === Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. Word, Excel, and PowerPoint are unreliable, unmaintainable, and unsafe. Send plain text, rtf, pdf, or W3C html instead. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html J.L.Rivera __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Any successes w/ LyX 1.3.6 for Windows 98SE
--- Rich Shepard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Luis Rivera wrote: What should I send to the developers? Luis, A couple of dozen roses for making a native Winduhs port might be nice. Or, a nice wine, perhaps? Rich I know what you mean... Sorry. I'll restate my question... How do I make a log file I can send to the developers to help them find and fix the problem? On a merrier tone, perhaps you might accept some postcard from the Great Tenochtitlan, aka Mexico City? Or do you guys collect coins, or empty beer cans? Cheers, Luis === Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. Word, Excel, and PowerPoint are unreliable, unmaintainable, and unsafe. Send plain text, rtf, pdf, or W3C html instead. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html J.L.Rivera __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Any successes w/ LyX 1.3.6 for Windows 98SE
Quoting William F. Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The install keeps crashing on me --- where should I send the crash log? Or should I give up until I'm running something made in this century? It's not just that: I tried to copy/paste one working copy of LyX 1.3.6.1 from WinXP to Win98, making some adjustments to the paths, and it stopped working. There seems to be some bad call to kernel32.dll. Perhaps there is a deeper bug. What should I send to the developers? Luis. === Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. Word, Excel, and PowerPoint are unreliable, unmaintainable, and unsafe. Send plain text, rtf, pdf, or W3C html instead. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html J.L.Rivera __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Any successes w/ LyX 1.3.6 for Windows 98SE
--- Rich Shepard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Luis Rivera wrote: What should I send to the developers? Luis, A couple of dozen roses for making a native Winduhs port might be nice. Or, a nice wine, perhaps? Rich I know what you mean... Sorry. I'll restate my question... How do I make a log file I can send to the developers to help them find and fix the problem? On a merrier tone, perhaps you might accept some postcard from the Great Tenochtitlan, aka Mexico City? Or do you guys collect coins, or empty beer cans? Cheers, Luis === Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. Word, Excel, and PowerPoint are unreliable, unmaintainable, and unsafe. Send plain text, rtf, pdf, or W3C html instead. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html J.L.Rivera __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Any successes w/ LyX 1.3.6 for Windows 98SE
>Quoting "William F. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >The install keeps crashing on me --- where should I send the crash log? > >Or should I give up until I'm running something made in this century? > It's not just that: I tried to "copy/paste" one working copy of LyX 1.3.6.1 from WinXP to Win98, making some adjustments to the paths, and it stopped working. There seems to be some bad call to kernel32.dll. Perhaps there is a deeper bug. What should I send to the developers? Luis. === Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. Word, Excel, and PowerPoint are unreliable, unmaintainable, and unsafe. Send plain text, rtf, pdf, or W3C html instead. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html J.L.Rivera __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Any successes w/ LyX 1.3.6 for Windows 98SE
--- Rich Shepard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Luis Rivera wrote: > > > What should I send to the developers? > > Luis, > >A couple of dozen roses for making a native Winduhs port might be > nice. Or, > a nice wine, perhaps? > > Rich > I know what you mean... Sorry. I'll restate my question... "How do I make a log file I can send to the developers to help them find and fix the problem?" On a merrier tone, perhaps you might accept some postcard from the Great Tenochtitlan, aka Mexico City? Or do you guys collect coins, or empty beer cans? Cheers, Luis === Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. Word, Excel, and PowerPoint are unreliable, unmaintainable, and unsafe. Send plain text, rtf, pdf, or W3C html instead. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html J.L.Rivera __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Heretical question?
Thanks to all who responded to my requests for help to get LyX working. It's now functioning fine... but tex2lyx has problems translating my sample file so... Having looked at Latex stuff a lot over the past few weeks as a Latex newbie, could I ask a (heretical!?) question? Why isn't LyX (or something else) a fully fledged WYSIWYG word processor? I can see the logic in how Donald Knuth designed things originally but I suspect a lot of that was guided by the fact that computers then were not capable of doing page rendering on the fly. But I don't think that restriction is true anymore. So is there any fundamental reason why Yap, say, couldn't be turned into a word processor... other then the obvious one of the effort involved? Just wondering because Latex is a significant learning curve and the tools are really rather rudimentary. WYSIWYG DTP programs exist! Peter Hello, I think most of all concur in saying that the WYSIWYM approach has the advantage of drawing clearly the line between thinking and writing, on one side, and typesetting on the other. IMO, there are two main problems with any WYSIWYG system: first, and most important, is precisely that it ties the two tasks (writing and designing) so tightly, that you end up designing your document as you type it, and thinking that threading together form and content is not just a Good Thing, but the True Way (perhaps the Only Way); second, and no less trivial, is that the programs implementing any WYSIWYG system have to incorporate, in one go, the complicated algorithms making good typography, plus the complicated algorithms making good spell checking and hyphenation, plus the complicated algorithms making good font rendering, including hinting, for both printing and screen display, among many other things. In the end, you get pretty bloated programs eating up your hard drive, RAM memory, CPU time, and personal budget, while tying your hands to what you get on screen, hoping nothing will go wrong in the way to the printer... if you add that most WYSIWYG systems in the market have their own secret/undocumented formats, you might be end up buying potential disasters. In my last experience with the most (in)famous of them, the thing ended up eating all the footnotes of my Dissertation draft. You may guess the feeling... I like TeX for its output; I like LaTeX for its simpler structured document format, centered in content rather than format; and I like LyX for hiding most of the quirks of LaTeX's syntax from me with a simple GUI. It is a Good Thing that LyX only understands a subset of LaTeX, since it is easier to implement than the whole of TeX's language (I think both TeXmacs and microIMP go wrong in trying to implement TeX's guts right on the GUI, but I might be biased), and for any extra requirement there is always room for some ERT; it is a Good Thing that LyX is not committed to use TeX's fonts on screen, and relies instead on the OS's native capabilities; and it is a Good Thing that the background typesetting engine is TeX, which is powerful, reliable, and free. So, in my view, LyX fills exactly the gap between good typesetting and easy typing. Having said that, I think there are two things that keep most people from trying something like LyX (or any other WYSIWYM system). First, some people really want to design leaflets, postcards, greeting cards, magazines, or what not... and they mean to find something exactly like point and click to do this job for them. What they need is a CAD program, not a word processor, and LyX was not made for them. Second, so many people are fed with the FUD spread by some vendors or IT people, that the very thought of trying something else than M$W*rd or their alikes makes them tremble. Some of my colleagues get very interested from what they see I can do with LyX/TeX (Greek, Math, Polish and Arabic in one document, typed in plain ascii), but when they hear I do not use W*rd, they get very anxious about being isolated from the rest of the world, and give up without trying. I might be wrong on this, but it seems to me that what we might be missing here two things to promote the spreading of LyX and/or WYSIWYM. First, the development of some clean interface between WYSIWYG designing and WYSIWYM typing, perhaps something like a clean filter back and forth between LyX and RTF/XHTML, so that those poor souls tied to traditional word processors may not feel isolated from the rest of the world; and second, perhaps giving LyX the ability to do this filtering and other automated tasks by itself, perhaps with some built-in scripting language (elisp from emacs, or python from OpenOffice, come to mind). This way LyX wouldn't rely on external programs, like perl or python today... Right now I'm comfy with them, plus gema and gpp, to do this stuff myself. But *sigh* it would be sooo great... Cheers, Luis. === I don't have a copy of Word, Excel, or PowerPoint. I have no plans to buy one.
Heretical question?
Thanks to all who responded to my requests for help to get LyX working. It's now functioning fine... but tex2lyx has problems translating my sample file so... Having looked at Latex stuff a lot over the past few weeks as a Latex newbie, could I ask a (heretical!?) question? Why isn't LyX (or something else) a fully fledged WYSIWYG word processor? I can see the logic in how Donald Knuth designed things originally but I suspect a lot of that was guided by the fact that computers then were not capable of doing page rendering on the fly. But I don't think that restriction is true anymore. So is there any fundamental reason why Yap, say, couldn't be turned into a word processor... other then the obvious one of the effort involved? Just wondering because Latex is a significant learning curve and the tools are really rather rudimentary. WYSIWYG DTP programs exist! Peter Hello, I think most of all concur in saying that the WYSIWYM approach has the advantage of drawing clearly the line between thinking and writing, on one side, and typesetting on the other. IMO, there are two main problems with any WYSIWYG system: first, and most important, is precisely that it ties the two tasks (writing and designing) so tightly, that you end up designing your document as you type it, and thinking that threading together form and content is not just a Good Thing, but the True Way (perhaps the Only Way); second, and no less trivial, is that the programs implementing any WYSIWYG system have to incorporate, in one go, the complicated algorithms making good typography, plus the complicated algorithms making good spell checking and hyphenation, plus the complicated algorithms making good font rendering, including hinting, for both printing and screen display, among many other things. In the end, you get pretty bloated programs eating up your hard drive, RAM memory, CPU time, and personal budget, while tying your hands to what you get on screen, hoping nothing will go wrong in the way to the printer... if you add that most WYSIWYG systems in the market have their own secret/undocumented formats, you might be end up buying potential disasters. In my last experience with the most (in)famous of them, the thing ended up eating all the footnotes of my Dissertation draft. You may guess the feeling... I like TeX for its output; I like LaTeX for its simpler structured document format, centered in content rather than format; and I like LyX for hiding most of the quirks of LaTeX's syntax from me with a simple GUI. It is a Good Thing that LyX only understands a subset of LaTeX, since it is easier to implement than the whole of TeX's language (I think both TeXmacs and microIMP go wrong in trying to implement TeX's guts right on the GUI, but I might be biased), and for any extra requirement there is always room for some ERT; it is a Good Thing that LyX is not committed to use TeX's fonts on screen, and relies instead on the OS's native capabilities; and it is a Good Thing that the background typesetting engine is TeX, which is powerful, reliable, and free. So, in my view, LyX fills exactly the gap between good typesetting and easy typing. Having said that, I think there are two things that keep most people from trying something like LyX (or any other WYSIWYM system). First, some people really want to design leaflets, postcards, greeting cards, magazines, or what not... and they mean to find something exactly like point and click to do this job for them. What they need is a CAD program, not a word processor, and LyX was not made for them. Second, so many people are fed with the FUD spread by some vendors or IT people, that the very thought of trying something else than M$W*rd or their alikes makes them tremble. Some of my colleagues get very interested from what they see I can do with LyX/TeX (Greek, Math, Polish and Arabic in one document, typed in plain ascii), but when they hear I do not use W*rd, they get very anxious about being isolated from the rest of the world, and give up without trying. I might be wrong on this, but it seems to me that what we might be missing here two things to promote the spreading of LyX and/or WYSIWYM. First, the development of some clean interface between WYSIWYG designing and WYSIWYM typing, perhaps something like a clean filter back and forth between LyX and RTF/XHTML, so that those poor souls tied to traditional word processors may not feel isolated from the rest of the world; and second, perhaps giving LyX the ability to do this filtering and other automated tasks by itself, perhaps with some built-in scripting language (elisp from emacs, or python from OpenOffice, come to mind). This way LyX wouldn't rely on external programs, like perl or python today... Right now I'm comfy with them, plus gema and gpp, to do this stuff myself. But *sigh* it would be sooo great... Cheers, Luis. === I don't have a copy of Word, Excel, or PowerPoint. I have no plans to buy one.
Heretical question?
>Thanks to all who responded to my requests for help to get LyX >working. It's now functioning fine... but tex2lyx has problems >translating my sample file so... > >Having looked at Latex stuff a lot over the past few weeks as a Latex >newbie, could I ask a (heretical!?) question? Why isn't LyX (or >something else) a fully fledged WYSIWYG word processor? I can see the >logic in how Donald Knuth designed things originally but I suspect a >lot of that was guided by the fact that computers then were not >capable of doing page rendering on the fly. But I don't think that >restriction is true anymore. So is there any fundamental reason why >Yap, say, couldn't be turned into a word processor... other then the >obvious one of the effort involved? Just wondering because Latex is a >significant learning curve and the tools are really rather >rudimentary. WYSIWYG DTP programs exist! > >Peter > Hello, I think most of all concur in saying that the WYSIWYM approach has the advantage of drawing clearly the line between thinking and writing, on one side, and typesetting on the other. IMO, there are two main problems with any WYSIWYG system: first, and most important, is precisely that it ties the two tasks (writing and designing) so tightly, that you end up designing your document as you type it, and thinking that threading together form and content is not just a Good Thing, but the True Way (perhaps the Only Way); second, and no less trivial, is that the programs implementing any WYSIWYG system have to incorporate, in one go, the complicated algorithms making good typography, plus the complicated algorithms making good spell checking and hyphenation, plus the complicated algorithms making good font rendering, including hinting, for both printing and screen display, among many other things. In the end, you get pretty bloated programs eating up your hard drive, RAM memory, CPU time, and personal budget, while tying your hands to what you get on screen, hoping nothing will go wrong in the way to the printer... if you add that most WYSIWYG systems in the market have their own secret/undocumented formats, you might be end up buying potential disasters. In my last experience with the most (in)famous of them, the thing ended up eating all the footnotes of my Dissertation draft. You may guess the feeling... I like TeX for its output; I like LaTeX for its simpler structured document format, centered in content rather than format; and I like LyX for hiding most of the quirks of LaTeX's syntax from me with a simple GUI. It is a Good Thing that LyX only understands a subset of LaTeX, since it is easier to implement than the whole of TeX's language (I think both TeXmacs and microIMP go wrong in trying to implement TeX's guts right on the GUI, but I might be biased), and for any extra requirement there is always room for some ERT; it is a Good Thing that LyX is not committed to use TeX's fonts on screen, and relies instead on the OS's native capabilities; and it is a Good Thing that the background typesetting engine is TeX, which is powerful, reliable, and free. So, in my view, LyX fills exactly the gap between good typesetting and easy typing. Having said that, I think there are two things that keep most people from trying something like LyX (or any other WYSIWYM system). First, some people really want to design leaflets, postcards, greeting cards, magazines, or what not... and they mean to find something exactly like "point and click" to do this job for them. What they need is a CAD program, not a word processor, and LyX was not made for them. Second, so many people are fed with the FUD spread by some vendors or IT people, that the very thought of trying something else than M$W*rd or their alikes makes them tremble. Some of my colleagues get very interested from what they see I can do with LyX/TeX (Greek, Math, Polish and Arabic in one document, typed in plain ascii), but when they hear I do not use W*rd, they get very anxious about being isolated from "the rest of the world", and give up without trying. I might be wrong on this, but it seems to me that what we might be missing here two things to promote the spreading of LyX and/or WYSIWYM. First, the development of some clean interface between WYSIWYG designing and WYSIWYM typing, perhaps something like a clean filter back and forth between LyX and RTF/XHTML, so that those poor souls tied to traditional word processors may not feel isolated from "the rest of the world"; and second, perhaps giving LyX the ability to do this filtering and other automated tasks by itself, perhaps with some built-in scripting language (elisp from emacs, or python from OpenOffice, come to mind). This way LyX wouldn't rely on external programs, like perl or python today... Right now I'm comfy with them, plus gema and gpp, to do this stuff myself. But *sigh* it would be sooo great... Cheers, Luis. === I don't have a copy of Word, Excel, or PowerPoint. I have
Re: Latex import...AGAIN!
Nicolas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hei! I know this issue has already been treated in this list (http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-users- [EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg39543.html), but I still do not manage to make it work. I am using Lyx 1.3.5 in windows. I have also installed Python 2.4.1. Perhaps the simplest solution is to follow the advice given in LyXWinTips, http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyXWinTips in the section latex import simply adding the lyx2lyx.cmd file suggested there is enough. It runs on my WinXP and in Win2000 at school. It only uses the programs packed by Ruurd. No need to reconfigure, install, or whatever. To me this is like black magic, but it worked in my case... Luis.
Re: Latex import...AGAIN!
Nicolas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hei! I know this issue has already been treated in this list (http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-users- [EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg39543.html), but I still do not manage to make it work. I am using Lyx 1.3.5 in windows. I have also installed Python 2.4.1. Perhaps the simplest solution is to follow the advice given in LyXWinTips, http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyXWinTips in the section latex import simply adding the lyx2lyx.cmd file suggested there is enough. It runs on my WinXP and in Win2000 at school. It only uses the programs packed by Ruurd. No need to reconfigure, install, or whatever. To me this is like black magic, but it worked in my case... Luis.
Re: Latex import...AGAIN!
Nicolas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hei! > > I know this issue has already been treated in this > list > (http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-users- [EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg39543.html), > but I > still do not manage to make it work. > I am using Lyx 1.3.5 in windows. I have also installed Python 2.4.1. Perhaps the simplest solution is to follow the advice given in LyXWinTips, http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/LyXWinTips in the section "latex import" simply adding the lyx2lyx.cmd file suggested there is enough. It runs on my WinXP and in Win2000 at school. It only uses the programs packed by Ruurd. No need to reconfigure, install, or whatever. To me this is like black magic, but it worked in my case... Luis.
Re: windows lyx latex import solution
I'm glad nobody posted before me to this thread. I have some amendments (somehow I got confused and counted three twice in my previous posting). To whom it may concern, I think it might be convenient to summarize our discussion of the problems involved in latex conversion to lyx in Windows. That's why I propose this new thread... The Problems 1. The conversion script is broken or incomplete. reLyX produces an old lyx format, and the packaged lyx2lyx needs fixes for dependencies. 2. The program call from within LyX is incorrect. In the Edit/Preferences menu, under Converters/LaTeX - LyX it calls reLyX -f $$1 which leads to the problem number... 3. The reLyX/lyx2lyx conversion programs packaged with Ruurd's distribution depend on stripped down and probably outdated perl and python libraries and executables. reLyX produces an old unrecognized lyx format that LyX 1.3.5 cannot load or process, so there is need for post-processing by lyx2lyx. The Solutions = 1. reLyX is deprecated. The new tex2lyx conversion program available at wiki.lyx.org, is strongly recommended. 2. Since the target format for this program supersedes the currently distributed 1.3.5, it must be downgraded it with the newer lyx2lyx distributed with tex2lyx, or the lyx2lyx binary distributed in the LyXWinTips page. 3. Consequently, we still need the two-step process previously required by reLyX: LaTeX to lyx14, lyx14 to lyx13; we need then another conversion script, calling tex2lyx for conversion, and lyx2lyx for post processing, and a consistent way to call this script. I propose the ugly provisional name `ltx2lyx'. This way, we may fix the call from within LyX to the two step conversion script substituting reLyX typing ltx2lyx $$1 I suppose the conclusions of this thread may be worth of publication somewhere in the wiki. Did I miss something? Luis.
Re: windows lyx latex import solution
I'm glad nobody posted before me to this thread. I have some amendments (somehow I got confused and counted three twice in my previous posting). To whom it may concern, I think it might be convenient to summarize our discussion of the problems involved in latex conversion to lyx in Windows. That's why I propose this new thread... The Problems 1. The conversion script is broken or incomplete. reLyX produces an old lyx format, and the packaged lyx2lyx needs fixes for dependencies. 2. The program call from within LyX is incorrect. In the Edit/Preferences menu, under Converters/LaTeX - LyX it calls reLyX -f $$1 which leads to the problem number... 3. The reLyX/lyx2lyx conversion programs packaged with Ruurd's distribution depend on stripped down and probably outdated perl and python libraries and executables. reLyX produces an old unrecognized lyx format that LyX 1.3.5 cannot load or process, so there is need for post-processing by lyx2lyx. The Solutions = 1. reLyX is deprecated. The new tex2lyx conversion program available at wiki.lyx.org, is strongly recommended. 2. Since the target format for this program supersedes the currently distributed 1.3.5, it must be downgraded it with the newer lyx2lyx distributed with tex2lyx, or the lyx2lyx binary distributed in the LyXWinTips page. 3. Consequently, we still need the two-step process previously required by reLyX: LaTeX to lyx14, lyx14 to lyx13; we need then another conversion script, calling tex2lyx for conversion, and lyx2lyx for post processing, and a consistent way to call this script. I propose the ugly provisional name `ltx2lyx'. This way, we may fix the call from within LyX to the two step conversion script substituting reLyX typing ltx2lyx $$1 I suppose the conclusions of this thread may be worth of publication somewhere in the wiki. Did I miss something? Luis.
Re: windows lyx latex import solution
I'm glad nobody posted before me to this thread. I have some amendments (somehow I got confused and counted three twice in my previous posting). To whom it may concern, I think it might be convenient to summarize our discussion of the problems involved in latex conversion to lyx in Windows. That's why I propose this new thread... The Problems 1. The conversion script is broken or incomplete. reLyX produces an old lyx format, and the packaged lyx2lyx needs fixes for dependencies. 2. The program call from within LyX is incorrect. In the Edit/Preferences menu, under Converters/LaTeX -> LyX it calls reLyX -f $$1 which leads to the problem number... 3. The reLyX/lyx2lyx conversion programs packaged with Ruurd's distribution depend on stripped down and probably outdated perl and python libraries and executables. reLyX produces an old unrecognized lyx format that LyX 1.3.5 cannot load or process, so there is need for post-processing by lyx2lyx. The Solutions = 1. reLyX is deprecated. The new tex2lyx conversion program available at wiki.lyx.org, is strongly recommended. 2. Since the target format for this program supersedes the currently distributed 1.3.5, it must be downgraded it with the newer lyx2lyx distributed with tex2lyx, or the lyx2lyx binary distributed in the LyXWinTips page. 3. Consequently, we still need the two-step process previously required by reLyX: LaTeX to lyx14, lyx14 to lyx13; we need then another conversion script, calling tex2lyx for conversion, and lyx2lyx for post processing, and a consistent way to call this script. I propose the ugly provisional name `ltx2lyx'. This way, we may fix the call from within LyX to the two step conversion script substituting reLyX typing ltx2lyx $$1 I suppose the conclusions of this thread may be worth of publication somewhere in the wiki. Did I miss something? Luis.
Re: Latex import problem
TGreiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes , at first I tried the original version in Ruurds package essential modules are missing. Thomas Greiner On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:02:40 +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: It seems to be something like that... or I failed to redirect pythonpath to the right place. Anyway, I compiled lyx2lyx into a self-contained executable (a couple of libraries required, all of them placed together), but I don't know how to post it to the Wiki. This package may supersede Ruurd's distribution without having to install a full blooded Python. Any help? Luis
Re: Latex import problem
TGreiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yes , at first I tried the original version in Ruurds package essential modules are missing. Thomas Greiner On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:02:40 +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: It seems to be something like that... or I failed to redirect pythonpath to the right place. Anyway, I compiled lyx2lyx into a self-contained executable (a couple of libraries required, all of them placed together), but I don't know how to post it to the Wiki. This package may supersede Ruurd's distribution without having to install a full blooded Python. Any help? Luis
Re: Latex import problem
TGreiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Yes , at first I tried the original version in RuurdÂs package > essential modules are missing. > Thomas Greiner > > On Thu, 19 May 2005 10:02:40 +0100, Angus Leeming wrote: > It seems to be something like that... or I failed to redirect pythonpath to the right place. Anyway, I compiled lyx2lyx into a self-contained executable (a couple of libraries required, all of them placed together), but I don't know how to post it to the Wiki. This package may supersede Ruurd's distribution without having to install a full blooded Python. Any help? Luis
Re: Latex import problem
Angus Leeming Tue, 17 May 2005 14:25:33 -0700 Luis Rivera wrote: Angus, I'm sorry I might have stepped on your toe. I apologize. Let me explain: ... reLyX generates a horrible mish-mash of different file formats that must somehow be deciphered by lyx2lyx. tex2lyx generates a completely consistent lyx file, version 241, which must then be converted back to version 221 so that LyX 1.3.5 can understand it. I shall concede that. I have little knowledge of the arcana of the LyX format, so I am in no position do decide whether the output of tex2lyx is equal, better, or worse, than that of reLyX (which, I also concede, might be a relic ;) My only point is that reLyX makes some `mish-mash' intelligible to lyx2lyx, and then you still have to upgrade this mish-mash into LyX 221. In other words, a two step process is necessary anyway. I still use the `old' reLyX script, for tex2lyx, in its current incarnation, is too bloated to my taste, and I have to reconvert the output to LyX 221 anyway. tex2lyx is bloated? For what definition of bloated? Well: I downloaded the binary from the Wiki page, and it expands to up to 2.5 Mb, while the existing combo reLyX/lyx2lyx takes about 2Mb (including the required python/perl libraries and executables). Two things that it does do, which reLyX does not, is understand most 'reasonable' LaTeX and generate a consistent .lyx file. Having no clue about the consistency of LyX, I must concede the second point; as for the first, reLyX has had no trouble so far with my rather idiosyncratic LaTeX files... To convert my LaTeX files into LyX I made the following batch file (tex2lyx.bat): @echo off rem Wrapper script for Win32 rem written by Ruurd Reitsma rem shamelessly hacked by Jose-Luis Rivera set PERLLIB=%~p0\..\lib set PYTHONPATH=%~p0\lib;%~p0\dlls %~p0\perl.exe -S %~p0\reLyX -f %1 %2 %3 ren %~n1.lyx rlx %~p0\python.exe -S %~p0\..\share\lyx\lyx2lyx\lyx2lyx -t 221 -o %~n1.lyx rlx del rlx set PERLLIB= set PYTHONPATH= - then I changed the call in Edit/Preferences/Converters/tex - LyX, to `tex2lyx $$i', and voilà! I named the batch file `tex2lyx' in the assumption that, someday, this shall be the name of the right utility to call. If you have any substantive problems with tex2lyx, then PLEASE bring them forward. I have no substantive problems with tex2lyx, save that it seems to me a little redundant for Ruurd's distribution. As I said, all I did was a little hacking of Ruurd's reLyX.bat file and I got my stuff. Before that, I downloaded and tested (succesfully) the experimental tex2lyx available at the wiki page, then realizing that I had to reformat the output with lyx2lyx anyway. So I patched a little batch to run lyx2lyx from console, and then it strucked me that with a little hacking to Ruurd's original kludge, I could get the two phases (reLyX/tex2lyx-lyx2lyx) done in one single shot. That's what I did. We rely on your feedback to improve it. Now I take your suggestion: do you think it viable to have tex2lyx built into LyX itself, like the converter going the other way around?This way we could use `lyx --import latex filename.tex', the way we use `lyx --export latex filename.lyx'). Should I write the developers suggesting this integration? However, please do not suggest to people on this list that they use reLyX in preference to tex2lyx. reLyX is a broken hack and unsupported nightmare. I won't do it anymore. Promise. Luis. Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
Re: More Greek tribulations--help with font installation
Stefano Franchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
thanks for the help and the suggestions. Unfortunately the problem is
not with \emph. I tried using the new \emph{}, but I still get the same
problem. LaTeX cannot find the proper font for rendering italicized
Greek. In fact, in the log file I get:
LaTeX Font Info:Try loading font information for LGR+ptm on input
line 96.
LaTeX Font Info:No file LGRptm.fd. on input line 96.
LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `LGR/ptm/m/it' undefined
(Font) using `LGR/cmr/m/n' instead on input line 96.
LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `LGR/ptm/m/n' undefined
(Font) using `LGR/cmr/m/n' instead on input line 96.
From what I've (recently) read that means that LaTex is looking for the
font Adobe Times (ptm) in the LGR encoding, in italic shape (i), cannot
find it, and substitutes cmr (computer modern?) normal shape in LGR
encoding. So the problems has to do with font installation and/or
mappings, because the typesetting of Greek should use the cbgreek
fonts. Which, I believe, all star with a g in their
filename/description. So there is something wrong in how LaTeX selects
the fonts, but I know too little about LaTeX/TeX to fix the problem...
You're right: seems that you're trying to use Times. You might have chosen
this font for your document in LyX Layout menu to have outlined fonts instead
of raster fonts in the output (your original problem, as far as I can recall).
Since there is no such a thing as LGR encoded fonts for Postscript Times, you
get font substitution, or no output...
Again, I suggest you to use the cm-lgc package. Alexej just uploaded a newer
version to CTAN a couple of days ago, now including OT1 and OT2 for Latin and
Cyrillic. Greek is fully LGC compliant.
Good luck,
Luis.
Re: Latex import problem
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: TGreiner wrote: -t 221 doesnt work: 241: Format not supported or single -to doesnt work. I get the old error. Thomas ... and this error has been explained to you. The python that Ruurd packaged with his port of LyX to Windows doesn't contain many of the modules of standard python that the LyX 1.4 version of lyx2lyx requires. Junk (throw away) the python that Ruurd packaged with LyX 1.3.5 and go get a real python package from www.python.org. Angus You ain't to throw away nothing. Just add the right paths to libperl and libpython environment variables, and everything runs fine. See Ruurd's original reLyX.bat file and my home-brewed patch somewhere in this thread. BTW, you shouldn't be using reLyX: tex2lyx makes a more consistent LyX output, and has a better lyx2lyx program. Cheers, Luis.
Re: Latex import problem
Angus Leeming Tue, 17 May 2005 14:25:33 -0700 Luis Rivera wrote: Angus, I'm sorry I might have stepped on your toe. I apologize. Let me explain: ... reLyX generates a horrible mish-mash of different file formats that must somehow be deciphered by lyx2lyx. tex2lyx generates a completely consistent lyx file, version 241, which must then be converted back to version 221 so that LyX 1.3.5 can understand it. I shall concede that. I have little knowledge of the arcana of the LyX format, so I am in no position do decide whether the output of tex2lyx is equal, better, or worse, than that of reLyX (which, I also concede, might be a relic ;) My only point is that reLyX makes some `mish-mash' intelligible to lyx2lyx, and then you still have to upgrade this mish-mash into LyX 221. In other words, a two step process is necessary anyway. I still use the `old' reLyX script, for tex2lyx, in its current incarnation, is too bloated to my taste, and I have to reconvert the output to LyX 221 anyway. tex2lyx is bloated? For what definition of bloated? Well: I downloaded the binary from the Wiki page, and it expands to up to 2.5 Mb, while the existing combo reLyX/lyx2lyx takes about 2Mb (including the required python/perl libraries and executables). Two things that it does do, which reLyX does not, is understand most 'reasonable' LaTeX and generate a consistent .lyx file. Having no clue about the consistency of LyX, I must concede the second point; as for the first, reLyX has had no trouble so far with my rather idiosyncratic LaTeX files... To convert my LaTeX files into LyX I made the following batch file (tex2lyx.bat): @echo off rem Wrapper script for Win32 rem written by Ruurd Reitsma rem shamelessly hacked by Jose-Luis Rivera set PERLLIB=%~p0\..\lib set PYTHONPATH=%~p0\lib;%~p0\dlls %~p0\perl.exe -S %~p0\reLyX -f %1 %2 %3 ren %~n1.lyx rlx %~p0\python.exe -S %~p0\..\share\lyx\lyx2lyx\lyx2lyx -t 221 -o %~n1.lyx rlx del rlx set PERLLIB= set PYTHONPATH= - then I changed the call in Edit/Preferences/Converters/tex - LyX, to `tex2lyx $$i', and voilà! I named the batch file `tex2lyx' in the assumption that, someday, this shall be the name of the right utility to call. If you have any substantive problems with tex2lyx, then PLEASE bring them forward. I have no substantive problems with tex2lyx, save that it seems to me a little redundant for Ruurd's distribution. As I said, all I did was a little hacking of Ruurd's reLyX.bat file and I got my stuff. Before that, I downloaded and tested (succesfully) the experimental tex2lyx available at the wiki page, then realizing that I had to reformat the output with lyx2lyx anyway. So I patched a little batch to run lyx2lyx from console, and then it strucked me that with a little hacking to Ruurd's original kludge, I could get the two phases (reLyX/tex2lyx-lyx2lyx) done in one single shot. That's what I did. We rely on your feedback to improve it. Now I take your suggestion: do you think it viable to have tex2lyx built into LyX itself, like the converter going the other way around?This way we could use `lyx --import latex filename.tex', the way we use `lyx --export latex filename.lyx'). Should I write the developers suggesting this integration? However, please do not suggest to people on this list that they use reLyX in preference to tex2lyx. reLyX is a broken hack and unsupported nightmare. I won't do it anymore. Promise. Luis. Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
Re: More Greek tribulations--help with font installation
Stefano Franchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
thanks for the help and the suggestions. Unfortunately the problem is
not with \emph. I tried using the new \emph{}, but I still get the same
problem. LaTeX cannot find the proper font for rendering italicized
Greek. In fact, in the log file I get:
LaTeX Font Info:Try loading font information for LGR+ptm on input
line 96.
LaTeX Font Info:No file LGRptm.fd. on input line 96.
LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `LGR/ptm/m/it' undefined
(Font) using `LGR/cmr/m/n' instead on input line 96.
LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `LGR/ptm/m/n' undefined
(Font) using `LGR/cmr/m/n' instead on input line 96.
From what I've (recently) read that means that LaTex is looking for the
font Adobe Times (ptm) in the LGR encoding, in italic shape (i), cannot
find it, and substitutes cmr (computer modern?) normal shape in LGR
encoding. So the problems has to do with font installation and/or
mappings, because the typesetting of Greek should use the cbgreek
fonts. Which, I believe, all star with a g in their
filename/description. So there is something wrong in how LaTeX selects
the fonts, but I know too little about LaTeX/TeX to fix the problem...
You're right: seems that you're trying to use Times. You might have chosen
this font for your document in LyX Layout menu to have outlined fonts instead
of raster fonts in the output (your original problem, as far as I can recall).
Since there is no such a thing as LGR encoded fonts for Postscript Times, you
get font substitution, or no output...
Again, I suggest you to use the cm-lgc package. Alexej just uploaded a newer
version to CTAN a couple of days ago, now including OT1 and OT2 for Latin and
Cyrillic. Greek is fully LGC compliant.
Good luck,
Luis.
Re: Latex import problem
Angus Leeming [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: TGreiner wrote: -t 221 doesnt work: 241: Format not supported or single -to doesnt work. I get the old error. Thomas ... and this error has been explained to you. The python that Ruurd packaged with his port of LyX to Windows doesn't contain many of the modules of standard python that the LyX 1.4 version of lyx2lyx requires. Junk (throw away) the python that Ruurd packaged with LyX 1.3.5 and go get a real python package from www.python.org. Angus You ain't to throw away nothing. Just add the right paths to libperl and libpython environment variables, and everything runs fine. See Ruurd's original reLyX.bat file and my home-brewed patch somewhere in this thread. BTW, you shouldn't be using reLyX: tex2lyx makes a more consistent LyX output, and has a better lyx2lyx program. Cheers, Luis.
Re: Latex import problem
>Angus Leeming >Tue, 17 May 2005 14:25:33 -0700 > >Luis Rivera wrote: Angus, I'm sorry I might have stepped on your toe. I apologize. Let me explain: >... reLyX generates a horrible mish-mash >of different file formats that must "somehow" be deciphered by lyx2lyx. > >tex2lyx generates a completely consistent lyx file, version 241, which >must >then be converted back to version 221 so that LyX 1.3.5 can understand >it. > I shall concede that. I have little knowledge of the arcana of the LyX format, so I am in no position do decide whether the output of tex2lyx is equal, better, or worse, than that of reLyX (which, I also concede, might be a relic ;) My only point is that reLyX makes some `mish-mash' intelligible to lyx2lyx, and then you still have to "upgrade" this mish-mash into LyX 221. In other words, a two step process is necessary anyway. >> I still use the `old' reLyX script, for tex2lyx, in its current >> incarnation, is too bloated to my taste, and I have to reconvert the >> output to LyX 221 anyway. > > tex2lyx is bloated? For what definition of bloated? Well: I downloaded the binary from the Wiki page, and it expands to up to 2.5 Mb, while the existing combo reLyX/lyx2lyx takes about 2Mb (including the required python/perl libraries and executables). >Two things that it >does do, which reLyX does not, is understand most 'reasonable' LaTeX and >generate a consistent .lyx file. > Having no clue about the consistency of LyX, I must concede the second point; as for the first, reLyX has had no trouble so far with my rather idiosyncratic LaTeX files... To convert my LaTeX files into LyX I made the following batch file (tex2lyx.bat): @echo off rem Wrapper script for Win32 rem written by Ruurd Reitsma rem shamelessly hacked by Jose-Luis Rivera set PERLLIB=%~p0\..\lib set PYTHONPATH=%~p0\lib;%~p0\dlls %~p0\perl.exe -S %~p0\reLyX -f %1 %2 %3 ren %~n1.lyx rlx %~p0\python.exe -S %~p0\..\share\lyx\lyx2lyx\lyx2lyx -t 221 -o %~n1.lyx rlx del rlx set PERLLIB= set PYTHONPATH= - then I changed the call in Edit/Preferences/Converters/tex -> LyX, to `tex2lyx $$i', and voilà! I named the batch file `tex2lyx' in the assumption that, someday, this shall be the name of the right utility to call. >If you have any substantive problems with tex2lyx, then PLEASE bring them >forward. I have no substantive problems with tex2lyx, save that it seems to me a little redundant for Ruurd's distribution. As I said, all I did was a little hacking of Ruurd's reLyX.bat file and I got my stuff. Before that, I downloaded and tested (succesfully) the experimental tex2lyx available at the wiki page, then realizing that I had to reformat the output with lyx2lyx anyway. So I patched a little batch to run lyx2lyx from console, and then it strucked me that with a little hacking to Ruurd's original kludge, I could get the two phases (reLyX/tex2lyx-lyx2lyx) done in one single shot. That's what I did. > We rely on your feedback to improve it. Now I take your suggestion: do you think it viable to have tex2lyx built into LyX itself, like the converter going the other way around?This way we could use `lyx --import latex filename.tex', the way we use `lyx --export latex filename.lyx'). Should I write the developers suggesting this integration? >However, please do not >suggest to people on this list that they use reLyX in preference to >tex2lyx. reLyX is a broken hack and unsupported nightmare. I won't do it anymore. Promise. Luis. Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
Re: More Greek tribulations--help with font installation
Stefano Franchi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> thanks for the help and the suggestions. Unfortunately the problem is
> not with \emph. I tried using the new \emph{}, but I still get the same
> problem. LaTeX cannot find the proper font for rendering italicized
> Greek. In fact, in the log file I get:
>
> LaTeX Font Info:Try loading font information for LGR+ptm on input
> line 96.
> LaTeX Font Info:No file LGRptm.fd. on input line 96.
>
> LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `LGR/ptm/m/it' undefined
> (Font) using `LGR/cmr/m/n' instead on input line 96.
>
> LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape `LGR/ptm/m/n' undefined
> (Font) using `LGR/cmr/m/n' instead on input line 96.
>
>
> From what I've (recently) read that means that LaTex is looking for the
> font Adobe Times (ptm) in the LGR encoding, in italic shape (i), cannot
> find it, and substitutes cmr (computer modern?) normal shape in LGR
> encoding. So the problems has to do with font installation and/or
> mappings, because the typesetting of Greek should use the cbgreek
> fonts. Which, I believe, all star with a "g" in their
> filename/description. So there is something wrong in how LaTeX selects
> the fonts, but I know too little about LaTeX/TeX to fix the problem...
>
You're right: seems that you're trying to use Times. You might have chosen
this font for your document in LyX Layout menu to have outlined fonts instead
of raster fonts in the output (your original problem, as far as I can recall).
Since there is no such a thing as LGR encoded fonts for Postscript Times, you
get font substitution, or no output...
Again, I suggest you to use the cm-lgc package. Alexej just uploaded a newer
version to CTAN a couple of days ago, now including OT1 and OT2 for Latin and
Cyrillic. Greek is fully LGC compliant.
Good luck,
Luis.
Re: Latex import problem
Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > TGreiner wrote: > > -t 221 doesnÂt work: 241: Format not supported > > or single -to doesnÂt work. I get the old error. > > Thomas > > ... and this error has been explained to you. The python that Ruurd > packaged with his port of LyX to Windows doesn't contain many of the > modules of standard python that the LyX 1.4 version of lyx2lyx requires. > > Junk (throw away) the python that Ruurd packaged with LyX 1.3.5 and go > get a real python package from www.python.org. > > Angus > > You ain't to throw away nothing. Just add the right paths to libperl and libpython environment variables, and everything runs fine. See Ruurd's original reLyX.bat file and my home-brewed patch somewhere in this thread. BTW, you shouldn't be using reLyX: tex2lyx makes a more consistent LyX output, and has a better lyx2lyx program. Cheers, Luis.
Re: More Greek tribulations--help with font installation
Stefano Franchi [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thank to Matej and Herbert I solved the problem with Greek letters in
BibTeX title. I am now facing another problem: how to get LyX/LaTex to
produce the 'slanted' Greek fonts needed for emphasis.
I installed the cbgreek package by Claudio Beccari and it seems to be
working fine with Babel with the \selectlanguage{greek} option. That
is, I can get the regular font shape with all the needed accents,
spirits, etc. and the font size is correctly scaled down from main text
to footnote text. So far so good. But I cannot produce the slanted
shape which, according to cbgreek's documentation, does indeed exist.
But I cannot see any difference between, e.g, the two following lines:
\selectlanguage{greek}pajhtik'on\selectlanguage{english}
\emph \selectlanguage{greek}pajhtik'on\selectlanguage{english}
The problem lies with the installation of cbgreek, I suppose, since I
get the following warnings when I try to compile directly from LaTeX;
You did something wrong. In fact, the problem is the use of \emph. First of
all, I seem to recall this is one of the taboos in moving from old LaTeX209 to
new LaTeX2e. you should use \emph{text} (delimiters required).
Second, if you are typesetting short sentences or words, you better use
\foreignlanguage{greek}{pajetik'on}. You skip the selectlangs, and your source
code is less verbose.
If you want to do something *really* cool, try adding
\renewcommand{\textsf}[#1]{\foreignlanguage{greek}{#1}}
to the preamble in Layout/Document/Preamble. This command assigns Greek to the
sans-serifed fonts (if you, like me, you don't have a use for those), so every
time you want to add something in Greek you simply type \textsf{pajhtik'os}.
The font mechanism adds cursive, slanted, boldface, whatever, automagically.
On LyX you see a sans-serifed font (Arial, I think, by default). I suggest you
to stick to the italic font. It's better, to my taste...
Trust me: I'm writing my dissertation too ;)
Luis.
