Re: RefStyle, Again

- Richard Heck rgh...@comcast.net a écrit : I think the proposal on the table at the moment is something like: Support both for 2.0, and declare prettyref...not degraded, deprecated ? This is really a mess, rewiting cha as chap via lyx2lyx and redefining accordingly the

Re: RefStyle, Again

- "Richard Heck" a écrit : > > I think the proposal on the table at the moment is something like: > Support both for 2.0, and declare prettyref...not degraded, deprecated ? > > This is really a mess, rewiting cha as chap via lyx2lyx and > redefining > > accordingly

Re: RefStyle, Again

On 07/15/2010 03:57 PM, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote: Richard Heck a écrit : (ii) Switch from prettyref to refstyle, as in the patch attached to #6609. Jurgen has an objection to this, namely, that it will inevitably break some customized prettyref formats. I.e., if you have declared in some

Re: RefStyle, Again

On 07/15/2010 03:57 PM, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote: Richard Heck a écrit : (ii) Switch from prettyref to refstyle, as in the patch attached to #6609. Jurgen has an objection to this, namely, that it will inevitably break some customized prettyref formats. I.e., if you have declared in some

Re: RefStyle, Again

Richard Heck wrote: I'm really unsure now how to proceed. So comments welcome. I'm unsure as well. We should get rid of prettyref eventually, because of its shortcomings (especially i18n). On the other hand, it just works for people who currently use it, and the risk of breaking working

Re: RefStyle, Again

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Richard Heck wrote: So I'm in favour to keep the prettyref option for now. This would probably make the change for everyone (except for the developers) a bit more smooth, and we can test how refstyle works out in real life before killing prettyref. +1 pavel

Re: RefStyle, Again

Richard Heck wrote: > I'm really unsure now how to proceed. So comments welcome. I'm unsure as well. We should get rid of prettyref eventually, because of its shortcomings (especially i18n). On the other hand, it just works for people who currently use it, and the risk of breaking working

Re: RefStyle, Again

Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Richard Heck wrote: > So I'm in favour to keep the prettyref option for now. This would probably > make the change for everyone (except for the developers) a bit more smooth, > and we can test how refstyle works out in real life before killing prettyref. +1 pavel

RefStyle, Again

So, now that I have a bit of time to get back to coding, I want to return to the refstyle patch posted a long time ago. If I'm remembering right, Jurgen had some concerns about how it would interact with user-customized prettyref formats and the like. I think this can be addressed, so far as

RefStyle, Again

So, now that I have a bit of time to get back to coding, I want to return to the refstyle patch posted a long time ago. If I'm remembering right, Jurgen had some concerns about how it would interact with user-customized prettyref formats and the like. I think this can be addressed, so far as