admitting that LyX can't do it all and providing some way of getting
under the hood. I always felt that the whole EvilRedText thing was
just an apeasement of the M$ Word crowd, anyhow.
Still, Raw or PassThru seems fine by me.
Go for 'Raw'.
This way we would spare us a flame war on the
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Let's just keep it as it is now: ERT Encapsulated Raw Text
Okokok...
I thought you are the math guru, why don't you write
$ok^3\ldot$
i see, the problem is the first uppercase letter ...
Herbert :-)
--
http://www.educat.hu-berlin.de/~voss/lyx/
Jose Abilio Oliveira Matos wrote:
On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 11:36:10AM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
Let's just keep it as it is now: ERT Encapsulated Raw Text
Okokok...
I thought you are the math guru, why don't you write
$ok^3\ldot$
I'm not
> admitting that LyX can't do it all and providing some way of getting
> under the hood. I always felt that the whole "EvilRedText" thing was
> just an apeasement of the M$ Word crowd, anyhow.
>
> Still, "Raw" or "PassThru" seems fine by me.
Go for 'Raw'.
This way we would spare us a flame
Andre Poenitz wrote:
>
> > Let's just keep it as it is now: "ERT" Encapsulated Raw Text
>
> Okokok...
I thought you are the math guru, why don't you write
$ok^3\ldot$
i see, the problem is the first uppercase letter ...
Herbert :-)
--
http://www.educat.hu-berlin.de/~voss/lyx/
Jose Abilio Oliveira Matos wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2001 at 11:36:10AM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
> > Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Let's just keep it as it is now: "ERT" Encapsulated Raw Text
> > >
> > > Okokok...
> >
> > I thought you are the math guru, why don't you write
> >
> >
On 29-Jul-2001 Garst R. Reese wrote:
TeX is better, because it's no more like the eval red text.
It goes away anyway. I like the 666, maybe the same people trying to ban
Harry Potter will give lyx some publicity also :)
Oh you have the same problems there, people seeing Harry Potter as a
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:41:35PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
The TeX inset on the other hand, is clear and intuitive.
In a DocBook document TeX won't make much sense.
Whoa. Never thought of that. In my mind, the LyX backend is always LaTeX.
On
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:27:06PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Amir Karger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| To me, though, markup seems like it's even more marked up than LyX, not more
| raw. I'd go with raw.
I still think '666' gives the right assosiations.
Only to those people who
| Only to those people who know all the various in-jokes and references.
eh? '666'?
what do _you_ think/assosiate when you see 666?
Actually, knowledge about the deeper meaning of '666' seems not to be too
widespread among all the supporters of a few 'other' religions and the
atheist...
| I had to explain '666' more than once and I do think 'Raw' is a much better
| name of that beast.
pun intended?
Sure... puns are not frowned upon hereabout...
Why not just rename the inset label to The Beast
For exactly the same raeson. _I_ would not know what 'The Beast' is in
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 04:31:28PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| I had to explain '666' more than once and I do think 'Raw' is a much better
| name of that beast.
pun intended?
Why not just rename the inset label to The Beast
the wickedest inset in the world
john
--
I'd rather
Mike Ressler wrote:
On 30 Jul 2001, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Lars == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Or just change the ERT acronym to be something else. Eloquent
Lars Red Text, Encumbering Red Text, Extension Red Text...
Encapsulated Raw Text?
:-) A
Garst R. Reese wrote:
Mike Ressler wrote:
On 30 Jul 2001, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Lars == Lars Gullik Bjønnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lars Or just change the ERT acronym to be something else. Eloquent
Lars Red Text, Encumbering Red Text, Extension Red Text...
* Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2001-07-30 16:26] schrieb:
| Only to those people who know all the various in-jokes and references.
eh? '666'?
what do _you_ think/assosiate when you see 666?
i only think hä, was is los? or for non germans what? what's going on here?
(hoping htat
Amazingly it seems like we have reached a kind of consensus that ERT is
better than 666, and this within two days! What the fuck? I had expected this
thread to continue for weeks!?! Normally trivial details take forever to
settle because everybody has an opinion. Hmm. I have to practice that mind
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 11:36:49PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
Amazingly it seems like we have reached a kind of consensus that ERT is
better than 666, and this within two days! What the fuck? I had expected this
thread to continue for weeks!?! Normally trivial details take forever
On 29-Jul-2001 Garst R. Reese wrote:
>> TeX is better, because it's no more like the eval red text.
> It goes away anyway. I like the 666, maybe the same people trying to ban
> Harry Potter will give lyx some publicity also :)
Oh you have the same problems there, people seeing "Harry Potter"
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:41:35PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
>
> > The "TeX inset" on the other hand, is clear and intuitive.
>
> In a DocBook document "TeX" won't make much sense.
Whoa. Never thought of that. In my mind, the LyX backend is always
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 03:27:06PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Amir Karger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | To me, though, markup seems like it's even more marked up than LyX, not more
> | raw. I'd go with raw.
>
> I still think '666' gives the right assosiations.
Only to those people
> | Only to those people who know all the various in-jokes and references.
>
> eh? '666'?
>
> what do _you_ think/assosiate when you see "666"?
Actually, knowledge about the deeper meaning of '666' seems not to be too
widespread among all the supporters of a few 'other' religions and the
> | I had to explain '666' more than once and I do think 'Raw' is a much better
> | name of that beast.
>
> pun intended?
Sure... puns are not frowned upon hereabout...
> Why not just rename the inset label to "The Beast"
For exactly the same raeson. _I_ would not know what 'The Beast' is in
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 04:31:28PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | I had to explain '666' more than once and I do think 'Raw' is a much better
> | name of that beast.
>
> pun intended?
>
> Why not just rename the inset label to "The Beast"
"the wickedest inset in the world"
john
--
Mike Ressler wrote:
>
> On 30 Jul 2001, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> > > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Lars> Or just change the "ERT" acronym to be something else. Eloquent
> > Lars> Red Text, Encumbering Red Text, Extension Red Text...
> >
> >
"Garst R. Reese" wrote:
>
> Mike Ressler wrote:
> >
> > On 30 Jul 2001, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >
> > > > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > Lars> Or just change the "ERT" acronym to be something else. Eloquent
> > > Lars> Red Text, Encumbering Red
* Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001-07-30 16:26] schrieb:
> > | Only to those people who know all the various in-jokes and references.
> >
> > eh? '666'?
> >
> > what do _you_ think/assosiate when you see "666"?
>
i only think "hä, was is los?" or for non germans "what? what's going on
Amazingly it seems like we have reached a kind of consensus that ERT is
better than 666, and this within two days! What the fuck? I had expected this
thread to continue for weeks!?! Normally trivial details take forever to
settle because everybody has an opinion. Hmm. I have to practice that mind
On Mon, Jul 30, 2001 at 11:36:49PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> Amazingly it seems like we have reached a kind of consensus that ERT is
> better than 666, and this within two days! What the fuck? I had expected this
> thread to continue for weeks!?! Normally trivial details take
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 02:32:00PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
Hi,
The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
is not very intuitive either, but at least more established?
Greets,
Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
is not very intuitive either, but at least more established?
TeX is better, because it's no more like the eval red text.
Herbert Voss wrote:
Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
is not very intuitive either, but at least more established?
TeX is better, because it's no
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 10:23:53AM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
Herbert Voss wrote:
Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
is not very intuitive
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 08:14:41PM -0400, Amir Karger wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 10:23:53AM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
Herbert Voss wrote:
Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
changing it to TEX? Failing
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 08:14:41PM -0400, Amir Karger wrote:
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 10:23:53AM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
Herbert Voss wrote:
Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
The 666 name is fun, but not very
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 02:32:00PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
> changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
> is not very intuitive either, but at least more established?
>
>
"Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" wrote:
>
> The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
> changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
> is not very intuitive either, but at least more established?
TeX is better, because it's no more like the eval red
Herbert Voss wrote:
>
> "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" wrote:
> >
> > The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
> > changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
> > is not very intuitive either, but at least more established?
>
> TeX is better,
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 10:23:53AM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> Herbert Voss wrote:
> >
> > "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" wrote:
> > >
> > > The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
> > > changing it to TEX? Failing that, we should at least use ERT, which
> > > is not
On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 08:14:41PM -0400, Amir Karger wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 10:23:53AM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> > Herbert Voss wrote:
> > >
> > > "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The 666 name is fun, but not very intuitive/informative. What about
> > > >
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 08:14:41PM -0400, Amir Karger wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2001 at 10:23:53AM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> > > Herbert Voss wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The 666 name is fun, but
40 matches
Mail list logo
