Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

On 2009-05-10, Alex Fernandez wrote: Welcome back, Christian, On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Christian Ridderström wrote: I'm not sure if the above is what eventually got decided, but if so one way to officially recognise eLyXer is to let Alex create a web page about inside www.lyx.org.

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

On 2009-05-10, Alex Fernandez wrote: > Welcome back, Christian, > On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Christian Ridderström wrote: >> I'm not sure if the above is what eventually got decided, but if so >> one way to "officially" recognise eLyXer is to let Alex create a web >> page about inside

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

On Sat, 2 May 2009, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: What we should do: * recognize eLyXer as a HTML converter (already done, AFAICS) * communicate whether both in eLyXer or LyX, something could be improved to make their cooperation easier What we could do (given that Alex supports this idea): *

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Welcome back, Christian, On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Christian Ridderström christian.ridderst...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure if the above is what eventually got decided, but if so one way to officially recognise eLyXer is to let Alex create a web page about inside www.lyx.org. Actually,

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

On Sun, 10 May 2009, Alex Fernandez wrote: Welcome back, Christian, It's nice to be back! (Actually, it's nice to be able to use pine, and to be able to access the lists as news groups :-) Apologies in advance for what became a rather long post. There are no technical insights regarding

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

On Sat, 2 May 2009, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: What we should do: * recognize eLyXer as a HTML converter (already done, AFAICS) * communicate whether both in eLyXer or LyX, something could be improved to make their cooperation easier What we could do (given that Alex supports this idea): *

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Welcome back, Christian, On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Christian Ridderström wrote: > I'm not sure if the above is what eventually got decided, but if so one way > to "officially" recognise eLyXer is to let Alex create a web page about > inside www.lyx.org.

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

On Sun, 10 May 2009, Alex Fernandez wrote: Welcome back, Christian, It's nice to be back! (Actually, it's nice to be able to use pine, and to be able to access the lists as news groups :-) Apologies in advance for what became a rather long post. There are no technical insights regarding

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

On Saturday 02 May 2009 16:19:46 rgheck wrote: Yes, true. For the linguistically inclined, this is actually a nice example of how possessives, like his, can mean a lot of different things. At least in English, and I'd assume in other languages, too. The same happens to me about my classes,

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

On Saturday 02 May 2009 16:19:46 rgheck wrote: > Yes, true. > > For the linguistically inclined, this is actually a nice example of how > possessives, like "his", can mean a lot of different things. At least in > English, and I'd assume in other languages, too. The same happens to me about "my"

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Alex Fernandez: Hi again, On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Kornel Benko kor...@lyx.org wrote: I meant something like: I (elyxer) understand lyx-formats up to 329. Our actual format in trunk is 354, while lyx 1.6.3 writes format 345. So it _is_ important to

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Alex Fernandez: > Hi again, > > On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Kornel Benko wrote: > > I meant something like: I (elyxer) understand lyx-formats up to 329. > > Our actual format in trunk is 354, while lyx 1.6.3 writes format 345. > > > > So it _is_

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Pavel Sanda wrote: http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg150476.html In any case, it might be a good idea to integrate it a bit more in one way or the other in any case ... i read as if it is included or not Yes, this is what I meant. Let me a bit more clear: I think

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Alex Fernandez wrote: Good to know. I thought it was cute to remove the extension but apparently this is causing problems. I will change this so that the main executable file is elyxer.py, and the main source code file is e.g. main.py. as i see it: 1. for smooth working we need elyxer.py in

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: What we should do: * recognize eLyXer as a HTML converter (already done, AFAICS) do you agree to backport this into branch? pavel

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Kornel Benko wrote: The problem is that I have to give it a file extension to make Python recognize it. When I do this also the problem I had with missing includes disappears. You mean, calling python path to elyxer is not sufficient? it is, but the question was different - is it

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Hi Richard, On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 1:19 AM, rgheck rgh...@bobjweil.com wrote: Have you considered that Alex might help you with your HTML project since he knows HTML as well as you and might have more LyX-HTML experience due to his eLyXer. Yes. I suggested we should work together. He

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Alex Fernandez wrote: and only after his exams were finished. Not a very solid promise, if I have to judge by my own University years :P i warn you, Richard is some day beyond _his_ exams :) pavel

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Pavel Sanda: Kornel Benko wrote: The problem is that I have to give it a file extension to make Python recognize it. When I do this also the problem I had with missing includes disappears. You mean, calling python path to elyxer is not sufficient? it

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Kornel Benko wrote: There were no need for elyxer to be aware of lyx2lyx. I for one am using it this way since some weeks. However, this would mean that the eLyXer format needed to be frozen. Jürgen

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Pavel Sanda wrote: * recognize eLyXer as a HTML converter (already done, AFAICS) do you agree to backport this into branch? principally yes, but the change has some flaws: * checkViewer should go to checkFormatsEntries method, not checkConvertersEntries(). * the program call syntax

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: * checkViewer should go to checkFormatsEntries method, not checkConvertersEntries(). but i wanted this to be function to be called only if checkProg('eLyXer converter'... proceed. (it shouldn't be displayed when user have no interest in lyxer). so the position is

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Pavel Sanda wrote: it makes sense to have both export possibilities - the standard via-latex-tools preserves much better the math, structure with contents etc, on the other way lyxer has more attractive visual appearance. so for different documents you would use different output. Well, this

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: it makes sense to have both export possibilities - the standard via-latex-tools preserves much better the math, structure with contents etc, on the other way lyxer has more attractive visual appearance. so for different documents you would use

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Pavel Sanda: Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: it makes sense to have both export possibilities - the standard via-latex-tools preserves much better the math, structure with contents etc, on the other way lyxer has more attractive visual

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: Kornel Benko wrote: There were no need for elyxer to be aware of lyx2lyx. I for one am using it this way since some weeks. However, this would mean that the eLyXer format needed to be frozen. I learned today, tha elyxer supports lyx1.6. It

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Kornel Benko wrote: Well, this is certainly the case for many other alternative programs as well. my feeling was that this is somewhat on the level of pdf/1/2/3 though. I'd rather see it on the level of latex2html/tex4ht. pdf1/2/3 involves specific file conversion handling and such.

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Kornel Benko wrote: I learned today, tha elyxer supports lyx1.6. It was not soo difficult to change my preferences to reflect this upgrade. And we do not change the format too often for the public. Still, LyX's autoconfigure should work with any version of a program, if possible. It's not

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: Kornel Benko wrote: I learned today, tha elyxer supports lyx1.6. It was not soo difficult to change my preferences to reflect this upgrade. And we do not change the format too often for the public. Still, LyX's autoconfigure should work

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: Kornel Benko wrote: Well, this is certainly the case for many other alternative programs as well. my feeling was that this is somewhat on the level of pdf/1/2/3 though. I'd rather see it on the level of latex2html/tex4ht.

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Pavel Sanda wrote: Alex Fernandez wrote: and only after his exams were finished. Not a very solid promise, if I have to judge by my own University years :P i warn you, Richard is some day beyond _his_ exams :) Yes, true. For the linguistically inclined, this is actually a nice

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Kornel Benko wrote: Still, LyX's autoconfigure should work with any version of a program, if possible. Yes, we should. It is yet not possible for autoconfigure to determine which format elyxer supports. Only eLyXer knows. And it should issue lyx2lyx in order to get that specific format.

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Alex Fernandez wrote: Said in this way it may look a bit harsh. The reality is that, even though it would be great, I don't think the project of producing native HTML output is viable. Not in a haha you will never catch me way, but rather in a it will get _very_ boring before it is useful

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: Kornel Benko wrote: Still, LyX's autoconfigure should work with any version of a program, if possible. Yes, we should. It is yet not possible for autoconfigure to determine which format elyxer supports. Only eLyXer knows. And it

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

i understand the problem. my problem is - are you really sure running src/elyxer.py is the same as running ./elyxer? No, both are different but Alex will re-add the file extension to the latter and rename the one in src/ now. elyxhtml is not to be seen anywhere in the menu, but as i said

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Uwe Stöhr wrote: i understand the problem. my problem is - are you really sure running src/elyxer.py is the same as running ./elyxer? No, both are different but Alex will re-add the file extension to the latter and rename the one in src/ now. elyxhtml is not to be seen anywhere in the

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Uwe Stöhr wrote: Thanks for changing this. But shouldn't we now give the html format the name HTML (tex4ht) to tell the users what program they are using, like we do for PDF? It's not necessarily tex4ht. It can also be latex2html or hevea. As said, I do not understand why eLyXer should be

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Uwe Stöhr wrote: Thanks for changing this. But shouldn't we now give the html format the name HTML (tex4ht) to tell the users what program they are using, like we do for PDF? It's not necessarily tex4ht. It can also be latex2html or hevea. yes, i use latex2html

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Pavel Sanda wrote: As said, I do not understand why eLyXer should be separated from that paradigma. i tried to explain - difference in technology and target too (mainly based what can (not) be read from latex output). Yes, but I'm not convinced by this at all. tex4ht is at least as far away

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: As said, I do not understand why eLyXer should be separated from that paradigma. i tried to explain - difference in technology and target too (mainly based what can (not) be read from latex output). Yes, but I'm not convinced by this at

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Hi Richard, On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 5:27 PM, rgheck rgh...@bobjweil.com wrote: And then, of course, there's the fact that you've already done so much of the hard work. My intention, if it's OK with you, is pretty much to borrow from what you've already done, at least as far as the format of the

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Hi Kornel, On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Kornel Benko kor...@lyx.org wrote: Yes, we should. It is yet not possible for autoconfigure to determine which format elyxer supports. Maybe some elyxer-parameter, like --print-format. Alex? No need to. eLyXer, being in the more-or-less-unique

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Alex Fernandez: Hi Kornel, On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Kornel Benko kor...@lyx.org wrote: Yes, we should. It is yet not possible for autoconfigure to determine which format elyxer supports. Maybe some elyxer-parameter, like --print-format. Alex? No

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Pavel Sanda wrote: Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: As said, I do not understand why eLyXer should be separated from that paradigma. i tried to explain - difference in technology and target too (mainly based what can (not) be read from latex output). Yes,

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Alex Fernandez wrote: As to the relicensing, that is fine with me. Just let me know when you need it. Just do it at your leisure, though maybe by the end of the month would be good. It won't become an issue for a little while still. rh

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Richard Heck wrote: I'm not proposing we list each one separately, but find some way to detect them all and then configure things appropriately. i dont understand this proposal. we detect them all. then what? pavel

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Hi again, On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Kornel Benko kor...@lyx.org wrote: I meant something like: I (elyxer) understand lyx-formats up to 329. Our actual format in trunk is 354, while lyx 1.6.3 writes format 345. So it _is_ important to know, what elyxer supports. Seen this way it is.

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Pavel Sanda wrote: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg150476.html > > "In any case, it might be a good idea to integrate it a bit more in one way > or the other" > > "in any case ..." i read as "if it is included or not" Yes, this is what I meant. Let me a bit more clear:

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Alex Fernandez wrote: > Good to know. I thought it was cute to remove the extension but > apparently this is causing problems. I will change this so that the > main executable file is "elyxer.py", and the main source code file is > e.g. "main.py". as i see it: 1. for smooth working we need

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > What we should do: > > * recognize eLyXer as a HTML converter (already done, AFAICS) do you agree to backport this into branch? pavel

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Kornel Benko wrote: > > The problem is that I have to give it a file extension to make Python > > recognize it. When I do this also the problem I had with missing includes > > disappears. > > You mean, calling python is not sufficient? it is, but the question was different - is it possible to

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Hi Richard, On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 1:19 AM, rgheck wrote: >> Have you considered that Alex might help you with your HTML project since >> he knows HTML as well as you and might have more LyX-HTML experience due to >> his eLyXer. >> > Yes. I suggested we should work together.

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Alex Fernandez wrote: > and only after > his exams were finished. Not a very solid promise, if I have to judge > by my own University years :P i warn you, Richard is some day beyond _his_ exams :) pavel

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Pavel Sanda: > Kornel Benko wrote: > > > The problem is that I have to give it a file extension to make Python > > > recognize it. When I do this also the problem I had with missing > > > includes disappears. > > > > You mean, calling python is not sufficient? > >

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Kornel Benko wrote: > There were no need for elyxer to be aware of lyx2lyx. I for one am using it > this way since some weeks. However, this would mean that the eLyXer format needed to be frozen. Jürgen

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Pavel Sanda wrote: > > * recognize eLyXer as a HTML converter (already done, AFAICS) > > do you agree to backport this into branch? principally yes, but the change has some flaws: * checkViewer should go to checkFormatsEntries method, not checkConvertersEntries(). * the program call syntax

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > * checkViewer should go to checkFormatsEntries method, not > checkConvertersEntries(). but i wanted this to be function to be called only if checkProg('eLyXer converter'... proceed. (it shouldn't be displayed when user have no interest in lyxer). so the position is

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Pavel Sanda wrote: > it makes sense to have both export possibilities - the > standard via-latex-tools preserves much better the math, structure with > contents etc, on the other way lyxer has more attractive visual appearance. > so for different documents you would use different output. Well,

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Pavel Sanda wrote: > > it makes sense to have both export possibilities - the > > standard via-latex-tools preserves much better the math, structure with > > contents etc, on the other way lyxer has more attractive visual appearance. > > so for different documents you

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Pavel Sanda: > Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > > Pavel Sanda wrote: > > > it makes sense to have both export possibilities - the > > > standard via-latex-tools preserves much better the math, structure with > > > contents etc, on the other way lyxer has more attractive

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: > Kornel Benko wrote: > > There were no need for elyxer to be aware of lyx2lyx. I for one am using > > it this way since some weeks. > > However, this would mean that the eLyXer format needed to be frozen. I learned today, tha elyxer supports

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Kornel Benko wrote: > > > Well, this is certainly the case for many other alternative programs as > > > well. > > > > my feeling was that this is somewhat on the level of pdf/1/2/3 though. I'd rather see it on the level of latex2html/tex4ht. pdf1/2/3 involves specific file conversion handling

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Kornel Benko wrote: > I learned today, tha elyxer supports lyx1.6. It was not soo difficult to > change my preferences to reflect this upgrade. > > And we do not change the format too often for the public. Still, LyX's autoconfigure should work with any version of a program, if possible. It's

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: > Kornel Benko wrote: > > I learned today, tha elyxer supports lyx1.6. It was not soo difficult to > > change my preferences to reflect this upgrade. > > > > And we do not change the format too often for the public. > > Still, LyX's autoconfigure

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: > Kornel Benko wrote: > > > > Well, this is certainly the case for many other alternative programs > > > > as well. > > > > > > my feeling was that this is somewhat on the level of pdf/1/2/3 though. > > I'd rather see it on the level of

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Pavel Sanda wrote: Alex Fernandez wrote: and only after his exams were finished. Not a very solid promise, if I have to judge by my own University years :P i warn you, Richard is some day beyond _his_ exams :) Yes, true. For the linguistically inclined, this is actually a nice

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Kornel Benko wrote: > > Still, LyX's autoconfigure should work with any version of a program, if > > possible. > > Yes, we should. It is yet not possible for autoconfigure to determine which > format elyxer supports. Only eLyXer knows. And it should issue lyx2lyx in order to get that specific

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Alex Fernandez wrote: Said in this way it may look a bit harsh. The reality is that, even though it would be great, I don't think the project of producing native HTML output is viable. Not in a "haha you will never catch me" way, but rather in a "it will get _very_ boring before it is useful"

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller: > Kornel Benko wrote: > > > Still, LyX's autoconfigure should work with any version of a program, > > > if possible. > > > > Yes, we should. It is yet not possible for autoconfigure to determine > > which format elyxer supports. > > Only eLyXer

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

> i understand the problem. my problem is - are you really sure running > src/elyxer.py is the same as running ./elyxer? No, both are different but Alex will re-add the file extension to the latter and rename the one in src/ now. > elyxhtml is not to be seen anywhere in the menu, but as i

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Uwe Stöhr wrote: > i understand the problem. my problem is - are you really sure running > src/elyxer.py is the same as running ./elyxer? No, both are different but Alex will re-add the file extension to the latter and rename the one in src/ now. > elyxhtml is not to be seen anywhere in the

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Thanks for changing this. But shouldn't we now give the html format the > name "HTML (tex4ht)" to tell the users what program they are using, like we > do for PDF? It's not necessarily tex4ht. It can also be latex2html or hevea. As said, I do not understand why eLyXer should

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Uwe Stöhr wrote: > > Thanks for changing this. But shouldn't we now give the html format the > > name "HTML (tex4ht)" to tell the users what program they are using, like we > > do for PDF? > > It's not necessarily tex4ht. It can also be latex2html or hevea. yes, i use

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Pavel Sanda wrote: > >As said, I do not understand why eLyXer should be separated from that > > paradigma. > > i tried to explain - difference in technology and target too (mainly based > what can (not) be read from latex output). Yes, but I'm not convinced by this at all. tex4ht is at least as

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Pavel Sanda wrote: > > >As said, I do not understand why eLyXer should be separated from that > > > paradigma. > > > > i tried to explain - difference in technology and target too (mainly based > > what can (not) be read from latex output). > > Yes, but I'm not

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Hi Richard, On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 5:27 PM, rgheck wrote: > And then, of course, there's the fact that you've already done so much of > the hard work. My intention, if it's OK with you, is pretty much to borrow > from what you've already done, at least as far as the format

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Hi Kornel, On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Kornel Benko wrote: > Yes, we should. It is yet not possible for autoconfigure to determine which > format elyxer supports. > > Maybe some elyxer-parameter, like --print-format. Alex? No need to. eLyXer, being in the more-or-less-unique

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Alex Fernandez: > Hi Kornel, > > On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Yes, we should. It is yet not possible for autoconfigure to determine > > which format elyxer supports. > > > > Maybe some elyxer-parameter, like --print-format.

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Pavel Sanda wrote: Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Pavel Sanda wrote: As said, I do not understand why eLyXer should be separated from that paradigma. i tried to explain - difference in technology and target too (mainly based what can (not) be read from latex output). Yes,

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Alex Fernandez wrote: As to the relicensing, that is fine with me. Just let me know when you need it. Just do it at your leisure, though maybe by the end of the month would be good. It won't become an issue for a little while still. rh

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Richard Heck wrote: > I'm not proposing we list each one separately, but find some way to detect > them all and then configure things appropriately. i dont understand this proposal. we detect them all. then what? pavel

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Hi again, On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Kornel Benko wrote: > I meant something like: I (elyxer) understand lyx-formats up to 329. > Our actual format in trunk is 354, while lyx 1.6.3 writes format 345. > > So it _is_ important to know, what elyxer supports. Seen this way it

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Uwe Stöhr wrote: As most of us agreed that eLyXer should be integrated i can't believe my eyes :) we must read some different lyx-devel list. there was _no_ such agreement, on contrary some people settled, that unless html output is done in a more complete way we shouldn't ship it together with

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Hi Uwe, On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Uwe Stöhr uwesto...@web.de wrote: As most of us agreed that eLyXer should be integrated, the following needs to be done: 1. the license of eLyXer need to be uniform with LyX's license (GPL v2 not v3) 2. eLyXer should get a more explicit name like

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

4. we need two HTML output formats to distinguich between tex4ht and eLyXer - I have implemented this now as html2 this was already done with my previous code and the ui was not poluted by html2 entry when somebody didn't have elyxer installed. No it was not. What you did was detecting

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Alex Fernandez schrieb: Essentially what you are proposing is a fork of eLyXer, not an integration. Why would that be a fork? A fork is in my opinion when I create a new program while the other one will be developed independently. But what I proposed is to have only only program, only to

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Uwe Stöhr wrote: 4. we need two HTML output formats to distinguich between tex4ht and eLyXer - I have implemented this now as html2 this was already done with my previous code and the ui was not poluted by html2 entry when somebody didn't have elyxer installed. No it was not. What

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

so we have two haters today :) but please note that you started it by reverting my code without a single question. it drives me crazy to ... It is a pretty Friday morning and I suddenly feel like checking what is going on with LyX, and I see this email. I am glad that the LyX traditions and

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

No it was not. What you did was detecting eLyXer but this is not necessary when it is integrated. which we haven't agreed upon Am I blind?: http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg150471.html http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg150473.html

Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Uwe Stöhr wrote: No it was not. What you did was detecting eLyXer but this is not necessary when it is integrated. which we haven't agreed upon anyway lets turn this into something more constructive - could the people involved write clearly their standpoint now, when i guess all the

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Uwe Stöhr wrote: No it was not. What you did was detecting eLyXer but this is not necessary when it is integrated. which we haven't agreed upon Am I blind?: http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg150471.html http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg150473.html

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

rgheck schrieb: My problem with the discussion in this thread is that it focuses on the current state of eLyXer. But why is that important? eLyXer is not yet ready for branch of course, but lets integrate it in trunk and make it better. Before we release LyX 2.0 we can decide if eLyXer is

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

the nitpicking part for Uwe: There is no binary for Windows and Mac, while the Python file works on all platforms. there is no binary for linux either. just look into the directory - elyxer is normal python script and the documentation says to use this script. The problem is that I have to

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Uwe Stöhr wrote: The problem is that I have to give it a file extension to make Python recognize it. When I do this also the problem I had with missing includes disappears. i understand the problem. my problem is - are you really sure running src/elyxer.py is the same as running ./elyxer?

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Uwe Stöhr wrote: rgheck schrieb: My problem with the discussion in this thread is that it focuses on the current state of eLyXer. But why is that important? eLyXer is not yet ready for branch of course, but lets integrate it in trunk and make it better. Before we release LyX 2.0 we can

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Am Freitag 01 Mai 2009 schrieb Uwe Stöhr: the nitpicking part for Uwe: There is no binary for Windows and Mac, while the Python file works on all platforms. there is no binary for linux either. just look into the directory - elyxer is normal python script and the documentation says

Re: Some poll about elyxer (was: Integration of eLyXer to LyX)

Hi Uwe, On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Uwe Stöhr uwesto...@web.de wrote: The problem is that I have to give it a file extension to make Python recognize it. When I do this also the problem I had with missing includes disappears. Good to know. I thought it was cute to remove the extension but

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

rgheck schrieb: I think that's up to JMarc, or Lars, or someone. What I don't see is why it's useful or important to integrate development of elyxer into LyX. I don't have a problem including the binary (i.e., elyxer executable) in the distribution. Have you considered that Alex might help

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Uwe Stöhr wrote: rgheck schrieb: I think that's up to JMarc, or Lars, or someone. What I don't see is why it's useful or important to integrate development of elyxer into LyX. I don't have a problem including the binary (i.e., elyxer executable) in the distribution. Have you considered

Re: Integration of eLyXer to LyX

Uwe Stöhr wrote: > As most of us agreed that eLyXer should be integrated i can't believe my eyes :) we must read some different lyx-devel list. there was _no_ such agreement, on contrary some people settled, that unless html output is done in a more complete way we shouldn't ship it together with

  1   2   >