Re: Unavailable Classes

2010-07-13 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller
Richard Heck wrote: One idea is to mark such classes with an asterisk, as in the attached patch and screenshot. Comments? Other ideas? I think we had an asterisk at first and then changed it to the current text, because people found the asterisk not informative enough. If you go for he

Re: Unavailable Classes

2010-07-13 Thread Liviu Andronic
Why not simply: 'missing latex classes' or 'missing dependencies'? Liviu On 7/13/10, Jürgen Spitzmüller sp...@lyx.org wrote: Richard Heck wrote: One idea is to mark such classes with an asterisk, as in the attached patch and screenshot. Comments? Other ideas? I think we had an asterisk at

Re: Unavailable Classes

2010-07-13 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller
Liviu Andronic wrote: Why not simply: 'missing latex classes' because there's also DocBook and it could also be missing style files. or 'missing dependencies'? this is a bit vague, IMHO. Jürgen

Re: Unavailable Classes

2010-07-13 Thread Richard Heck
On 07/13/2010 09:41 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Liviu Andronic wrote: Why not simply: 'missing latex classes' because there's also DocBook and it could also be missing style files. or 'missing dependencies'? this is a bit vague, IMHO. The other thing is that there

Re: Unavailable Classes

2010-07-13 Thread Richard Heck
On 07/13/2010 02:08 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Richard Heck wrote: One idea is to mark such classes with an asterisk, as in the attached patch and screenshot. Comments? Other ideas? I think we had an asterisk at first and then changed it to the current text, because people found

Re: "Unavailable" Classes

2010-07-13 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller
Richard Heck wrote: > One idea is to mark such classes with an asterisk, as in the attached > patch and screenshot. Comments? Other ideas? I think we had an asterisk at first and then changed it to the current text, because people found the asterisk not informative enough. If you go for he

Re: "Unavailable" Classes

2010-07-13 Thread Liviu Andronic
Why not simply: 'missing latex classes' or 'missing dependencies'? Liviu On 7/13/10, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: > Richard Heck wrote: >> One idea is to mark such classes with an asterisk, as in the attached >> patch and screenshot. Comments? Other ideas? > > I think we had an

Re: "Unavailable" Classes

2010-07-13 Thread Jürgen Spitzmüller
Liviu Andronic wrote: > Why not simply: 'missing latex classes' because there's also DocBook and it could also be missing style files. > or 'missing dependencies'? this is a bit vague, IMHO. Jürgen

Re: "Unavailable" Classes

2010-07-13 Thread Richard Heck
On 07/13/2010 09:41 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Liviu Andronic wrote: Why not simply: 'missing latex classes' because there's also DocBook and it could also be missing style files. or 'missing dependencies'? this is a bit vague, IMHO. The other thing is that there

Re: "Unavailable" Classes

2010-07-13 Thread Richard Heck
On 07/13/2010 02:08 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote: Richard Heck wrote: One idea is to mark such classes with an asterisk, as in the attached patch and screenshot. Comments? Other ideas? I think we had an asterisk at first and then changed it to the current text, because people found

Unavailable Classes

2010-07-12 Thread Richard Heck
that the unavailable classes are listed separately. Personally, I'd prefer colors or font shapes and weights: green (bold) = ready to go, yellow (plain text) = lacking some packages, and red (italic) = cannot process. attachment: lyx.png

"Unavailable" Classes

2010-07-12 Thread Richard Heck
quot; would be more on point than "Unavailable". What threw me was the fact that the unavailable classes are listed separately. Personally, I'd prefer colors or font shapes and weights: green (bold) = ready to go, yellow (plain text) = lacking some packages, and red (italic) = cannot process. <>