Amir Karger wrote:
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 08:29:07AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
- LaTeX things LyX can't do: my favorite example is \section[foo]{bar},
which is supposedly going to be supported someday.
Even the old mathed read \sqrt[3]{x} so I guess it is possible...
Oh,
Amir Karger wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 08:29:07AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >
> > > - LaTeX things LyX can't do: my favorite example is \section[foo]{bar},
> > > which is supposedly going to be supported someday.
> >
> > Even the old mathed read \sqrt[3]{x} so I guess it is
be able to get rid of the reLyXmt{} in syntax.defaults. (Actually, you
shouldn't get rid of it, since people might want to put their own personal
commands in there that aren't supported by Mathed.
If people wants support for something that is not yet in mathed they should
tell me (in simple
Herbert Voss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
why should I do a lyx-latex-lyx cycle?
You need it if you work on a document with a coauthor which doesn't have LyX.
this is the only reason??
It is the only reason for doing the cycle I can see. Having said that,
interoperability in general is a
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Andre Poenitz wrote:
I wonder whether the situation would improve once we had (a) a decent
document structure and (b) the reLyX code in C++.
I think there are not many things in reLyX that cant' be done in C++ and
- that's the point - there are more developers that know
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 08:19:56AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
The conversion is important. Perhaps the problem is that there aren't
many developers which know perl well.
Um, I do. I program perl python for a living. Is there a bug /
feature request for reLyx anywhere? I could
> be able to get rid of the reLyXmt{} in syntax.defaults. (Actually, you
> shouldn't get rid of it, since people might want to put their own personal
> commands in there that aren't supported by Mathed.
If people wants support for something that is not yet in mathed they should
tell me (in
Herbert Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> why should I do a lyx->latex->lyx cycle?
>>
>> You need it if you work on a document with a coauthor which doesn't have LyX.
>
> this is the only reason??
It is the only reason for doing the cycle I can see. Having said that,
interoperability in
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> I wonder whether the situation would improve once we had (a) a decent
> document structure and (b) the reLyX code in C++.
>
> I think there are not many things in reLyX that cant' be done in C++ and
> - that's the point - there are more developers that
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 08:19:56AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > >The conversion is important. Perhaps the problem is that there aren't
> > >many developers which know perl well.
> >
> > Um, I do. I program perl & python for a living. Is there a bug /
> > feature request for reLyx
On 07-Aug-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
We gain close to nothing by having the LyX format be latex.
Let away the close to and I can agree with the above!
And this will be the last mail on this subject from my part I don't
go that path down again. People should studdy the mailing list
We gain close to nothing by having the LyX format be latex.
Let away the close to and I can agree with the above!
close to is fine. It's easier to convert LaTeX diehards with a file
format they know. But in general, both of you are right...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 06:46:55PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
We gain close to nothing by having the LyX format be latex.
The main problem we currently have is that reLyX is almost not maintained.
Since we are continuously adding new features to LyX, reLyX stays behind,
so a
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:24:18PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 06:46:55PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
We gain close to nothing by having the LyX format be latex.
The main problem we currently have is that reLyX is almost not maintained.
Since we are
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 02:30:12PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| The main problem we currently have is that reLyX is almost not
| maintained.
Then obviously the conversion from latex to lyx is not that
important... at least not important for someone to step up and do the
work.
The
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 10:18:25AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| BTW, why 2-4 should be stored in the lyx file ?
| It is more reasonable to have them in the layout file.
No, never in the layout file.
Why not ?
I guess that the question is whether we store information about the
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 02:30:12PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| | The main problem we currently have is that reLyX is almost not
| | maintained.
|
| Then obviously the conversion from latex to lyx is not that
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:01:22PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Ok, document specific words that the spellchecker should ignore?
How will you store those in the latex document?
%% LyX local words
%% bla, lir, foo, var
??
sure relyx can handle this, but I stil claim that the
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:46:07PM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
| | Since we are continuously adding new features to LyX, reLyX stays behind,
| | so a lyx-latex-lyx cycle can loose information.
as I said: from a users sight lyx-latex is only important
to find critical errors or to
to whom? it's obviously that la(tex)-lyx is a nice thing,
but tell me the users who really(!) need this way of
conversion.
Everybody co-operating with LyXless LaTeX users.
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dekel Tsur wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:46:07PM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
| | Since we are continuously adding new features to LyX, reLyX stays behind,
| | so a lyx-latex-lyx cycle can loose information.
as I said: from a users sight lyx-latex is only important
to find
You need it if you work on a document with a coauthor which doesn't have LyX.
this is the only reason??
That's a pretty good reason. I won't get food if this breaks...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 04:43:42PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
no patches there...
If only reLyX was written in python...
Go ahead. Rewrite it in Algol if it will help. :-)
Most of my time on LyX is spent on the Literate support, various bug
fixes and the spec file right now.
I will
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 04:48:19PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Dekel Tsur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Why not ?
|
| I guess that the question is whether we store information about the
| appearance of the document in the document itself, or in an external file
| (layout file) ?
| The
Herbert Voss wrote:
Dekel Tsur wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:46:07PM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
| | Since we are continuously adding new features to LyX, reLyX stays behind,
| | so a lyx-latex-lyx cycle can loose information.
as I said: from a users sight lyx-latex is
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 05:23:31PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| | I guess that the question is whether we store information about the
| | appearance of the document in the document itself, or in an external file
| | (layout file) ?
| | The former is better if you want to write many
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 06:17:00PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| The article.layout etc. files are for the environments/commands defined by the
| standard .cls files, and they should not be changed by the user.
But I want my own defined floats while still using the article.layout.
Eran Tromer wrote:
Herbert Voss wrote:
Dekel Tsur wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:46:07PM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
| | Since we are continuously adding new features to LyX, reLyX stays
behind,
| | so a lyx-latex-lyx cycle can loose information.
as I said:
Andre Poenitz a écrit :
- formula were not XML-ised at all (It looked a bit harder and
somebody was reorganizing the code : is it over ?)
About this, I know that Jose is in vacations, but does someone know if it is
planned to have math formulas translated to MathML when a DocBook
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 03:25:04PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 12:27:36PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
I'd really like to see an XML format for 1.3 ... as it would make
things much easier to convert in the future ...
Personally, I think it best to have lyx store its
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 10:17:58AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
John Weiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Having recently done an XML seminar at work, I can offer the following
| to the discussion:
[snip!]
|
| For well-formed, think lex. For valid, think yacc.
And for this would
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 12:22:21AM +0200, ben wrote:
John Weiss a écrit :
Once we do design an XML-based LyX format, I suggest we document the
format using XSL. There's no magic around XSL: it's just an XML
document that uses a format designed for defining other XML formats.
I'll
What do you mean with semantical markup? Is it about the MathML content
tags?
Yes.
If so I agree that presentational markups are maybe enough.
Depends on intended usage...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 07-Aug-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> We gain close to nothing by having the LyX format be latex.
Let away the "close to" and I can agree with the above!
And this will be the last mail on this subject from my part I don't
go that path down again. People should studdy the mailing list
> > We gain close to nothing by having the LyX format be latex.
>
> Let away the "close to" and I can agree with the above!
"close to" is fine. It's easier to convert LaTeX diehards with a file
format they know. But in general, both of you are right...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 06:46:55PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> We gain close to nothing by having the LyX format be latex.
The main problem we currently have is that reLyX is almost not maintained.
Since we are continuously adding new features to LyX, reLyX stays behind,
so a
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:24:18PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 06:46:55PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> >
> > We gain close to nothing by having the LyX format be latex.
>
> The main problem we currently have is that reLyX is almost not maintained.
> Since we are
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 02:30:12PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | The main problem we currently have is that reLyX is almost not
> | maintained.
>
> Then obviously the conversion from latex to lyx is not that
> important... at least not important for someone to step up and do the
> work.
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 10:18:25AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | BTW, why 2-4 should be stored in the lyx file ?
> | It is more reasonable to have them in the layout file.
>
> No, never in the layout file.
Why not ?
I guess that the question is whether we store information about the
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 02:30:12PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > | The main problem we currently have is that reLyX is almost not
> | > | maintained.
> | >
> | > Then obviously the conversion from latex to lyx
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:01:22PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> Ok, document specific words that the spellchecker should ignore?
> How will you store those in the latex document?
>
> %% LyX local words
> %% bla, lir, foo, var
>
> ??
>
> sure relyx can handle this, but I stil claim
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:46:07PM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
> > | > | Since we are continuously adding new features to LyX, reLyX stays behind,
> > | > | so a lyx->latex->lyx cycle can loose information.
>
> as I said: from a users sight lyx->latex is only important
> to find critical errors
> to whom? it's obviously that la(tex)->lyx is a nice thing,
> but tell me the users who really(!) need this way of
> conversion.
Everybody co-operating with LyXless LaTeX users.
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dekel Tsur wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:46:07PM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
> > > | > | Since we are continuously adding new features to LyX, reLyX stays behind,
> > > | > | so a lyx->latex->lyx cycle can loose information.
> >
> > as I said: from a users sight lyx->latex is only
> > You need it if you work on a document with a coauthor which doesn't have LyX.
>
> this is the only reason??
That's a pretty good reason. I won't get food if this breaks...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 04:43:42PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> > no patches there...
>
> If only reLyX was written in python...
Go ahead. Rewrite it in Algol if it will help. :-)
Most of my time on LyX is spent on the Literate support, various bug
fixes and the spec file right now.
I will
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 04:48:19PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Dekel Tsur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | Why not ?
> |
> | I guess that the question is whether we store information about the
> | appearance of the document in the document itself, or in an external file
> | ("layout
Herbert Voss wrote:
>
> Dekel Tsur wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:46:07PM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
> > > > | > | Since we are continuously adding new features to LyX, reLyX stays behind,
> > > > | > | so a lyx->latex->lyx cycle can loose information.
> > >
> > > as I said: from a
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 05:23:31PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | > | I guess that the question is whether we store information about the
> | > | appearance of the document in the document itself, or in an external file
> | > | ("layout file") ?
> | > | The former is better if you want to
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 06:17:00PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | The article.layout etc. files are for the environments/commands defined by the
> | standard .cls files, and they should not be changed by the user.
>
> But I want my own defined floats while still using the article.layout.
Eran Tromer wrote:
>
> Herbert Voss wrote:
> >
> > Dekel Tsur wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 03:46:07PM +0200, Herbert Voss wrote:
> > > > > | > | Since we are continuously adding new features to LyX, reLyX stays
>behind,
> > > > > | > | so a lyx->latex->lyx cycle can loose
Andre Poenitz a écrit :
> > > - formula were not XML-ised at all (It looked a bit harder and
> > > somebody was reorganizing the code : is it over ?)
> >
> > About this, I know that Jose is in vacations, but does someone know if it is
> > planned to have math formulas translated to MathML when
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 03:25:04PM +0300, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 12:27:36PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> >
> > I'd really like to see an XML format for 1.3 ... as it would make
> > things much easier to convert in the future ...
>
> Personally, I think it best to have lyx
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 10:17:58AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Having recently done an XML seminar at work, I can offer the following
> | to the discussion:
[snip!]
> |
> | For "well-formed", think "lex". For "valid", think "yacc".
>
>
On Wed, Aug 08, 2001 at 12:22:21AM +0200, ben wrote:
> John Weiss a écrit :
>
> > Once we do design an XML-based LyX format, I suggest we document the
> > format using XSL. There's no magic around XSL: it's just an XML
> > document that uses a format designed for defining other XML formats.
>
> What do you mean with semantical markup? Is it about the MathML content
> tags?
Yes.
> If so I agree that presentational markups are maybe enough.
Depends on intended usage...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 07-Aug-2001 Dekel Tsur wrote:
I know that this has been discussed before. What were the arguments against
it ? (complexity of the parser?)
And not only one time. Please have a look at the mailing-list-archive.
Jürgen
--
Personally, I think it best to have lyx store its files as a valid latex files
(using latex comments for storing some information).
I know that this has been discussed before. What were the arguments against
it ? (complexity of the parser?)
That's one.
The next one is that there are things
Dekel Tsur a écrit :
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 12:27:36PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 10:05:32AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| that we should change format inside a fix release and x 0 will be a
| fix release where ONLY bugfixes should come in!
We could
John Weiss a écrit :
Once we do design an XML-based LyX format, I suggest we document the
format using XSL. There's no magic around XSL: it's just an XML
document that uses a format designed for defining other XML formats.
I'll even volunteer to work on it (I'd like to improve my XML
Gaillard Pierre-Olivier a écrit :
[...]
- formula were not XML-ised at all (It looked a bit harder and
somebody was reorganizing the code : is it over ?)
About this, I know that Jose is in vacations, but does someone know if it is
planned to have math formulas translated to MathML when a
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 06:19:00PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Andre Poenitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Personally, I think it best to have lyx store its files as a valid latex files
| (using latex comments for storing some information).
| I know that this has been discussed
- formula were not XML-ised at all (It looked a bit harder and
somebody was reorganizing the code : is it over ?)
About this, I know that Jose is in vacations, but does someone know if it is
planned to have math formulas translated to MathML when a DocBook file is
exported to SGML (I
On 07-Aug-2001 Dekel Tsur wrote:
> I know that this has been discussed before. What were the arguments against
> it ? (complexity of the parser?)
And not only one time. Please have a look at the mailing-list-archive.
Jürgen
--
> Personally, I think it best to have lyx store its files as a valid latex files
> (using latex comments for storing some information).
> I know that this has been discussed before. What were the arguments against
> it ? (complexity of the parser?)
That's one.
The next one is that there are
Dekel Tsur a écrit :
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 12:27:36PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 10:05:32AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> >
> > > | that we should change format inside a "fix" release and x > 0 will be a
> > > | fix release where ONLY bugfixes should come in!
John Weiss a écrit :
> Once we do design an XML-based LyX format, I suggest we document the
> format using XSL. There's no magic around XSL: it's just an XML
> document that uses a format designed for defining other XML formats.
> I'll even volunteer to work on it (I'd like to improve my XML
Gaillard Pierre-Olivier a écrit :
> [...]
> - formula were not XML-ised at all (It looked a bit harder and
> somebody was reorganizing the code : is it over ?)
About this, I know that Jose is in vacations, but does someone know if it is
planned to have math formulas translated to MathML when
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 06:19:00PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | > Personally, I think it best to have lyx store its files as a valid latex files
> | > (using latex comments for storing some information).
> | > I know that this has been
> > - formula were not XML-ised at all (It looked a bit harder and
> > somebody was reorganizing the code : is it over ?)
>
> About this, I know that Jose is in vacations, but does someone know if it is
> planned to have math formulas translated to MathML when a DocBook file is
> exported to
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
I have a couple of things that I want to do early in the 1.3.x series.
- add a \begin_doc_parameters ... \end_doc_parameters
- add a \begin_paragraph ... \end_paragraph
- add a \begin_par_parameters ... \end_par_parameters
so you want to change the file-format
On 06-Aug-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
That will continue to happen until we have a format that makes sense.
(note that for this change it is possible to make 1.2.x read the new
format with just a couple of small tweeks:
- ignore the begin_doc_parameters and end_doc_parameters
- user
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 10:05:32AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| that we should change format inside a fix release and x 0 will be a
| fix release where ONLY bugfixes should come in!
We could have the simple compability code in the fix releases. But not
the real format changes of
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 02:13:40PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| What ha[p[enned to the XML patches ?
mmm... I don't want XML... but only something XML-like.
why ?
having something XML-like adds none of the advantages of XML[1], and all the
disadvantages[2]
It's like having a coat
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 02:50:13PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
No, I don't think you understand what I mean by XML-like. Let's call
it well-formed XML instead.
I must admit I'm totally confused then ;)
If it is XML, then it is well-formed XML and vice versa. So we are using
an XML
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, John Levon wrote:
No, I don't think you understand what I mean by XML-like. Let's call
it well-formed XML instead.
I must admit I'm totally confused then ;)
If it is XML, then it is well-formed XML and vice versa. So we are using
an XML format (good that's what I
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 03:27:53PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
One problem with XML is that a full parser carries a pretty big
foot-print along with it, and it also introduces Yet Another
Dependency. Finally, no good free C++ XML parsers are really available
at this point to my
John Levon wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 03:27:53PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
One problem with XML is that a full parser carries a pretty big
foot-print along with it, and it also introduces Yet Another
Dependency. Finally, no good free C++ XML parsers are really
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 03:27:53PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, John Levon wrote:
No, I don't think you understand what I mean by XML-like. Let's call
it well-formed XML instead.
I guess the point is that we don't want to a full-blown XML parser in LyX.
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 04:16:30PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
So that XML parsers will handle it. (but I don't think we want to use
xml parsers (perhaps a sax parser))
For what it's worth, the Qt doc states:
The XML module provides a well-formed XML parser using the SAX2
(Simple API
Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> I have a couple of things that I want to do early in the 1.3.x series.
>
> - add a \begin_doc_parameters ... \end_doc_parameters
> - add a \begin_paragraph ... \end_paragraph
> - add a \begin_par_parameters ... \end_par_parameters
so you want to change the
On 06-Aug-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> That will continue to happen until we have a format that makes sense.
> (note that for this change it is possible to make 1.2.x read the new
> format with just a couple of small tweeks:
> - ignore the begin_doc_parameters and end_doc_parameters
> -
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 10:05:32AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | that we should change format inside a "fix" release and x > 0 will be a
> | fix release where ONLY bugfixes should come in!
>
> We could have the simple compability code in the fix releases. But not
> the real format
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 02:13:40PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | What ha[p[enned to the XML patches ?
>
> mmm... I don't want XML... but only something XML-like.
why ?
having something XML-like adds none of the advantages of XML[1], and all the
disadvantages[2]
It's like having a
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 02:50:13PM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> No, I don't think you understand what I mean by XML-like. Let's call
> it well-formed XML instead.
I must admit I'm totally confused then ;)
If it is XML, then it is well-formed XML and vice versa. So we are using
an XML
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, John Levon wrote:
> > No, I don't think you understand what I mean by XML-like. Let's call
> > it well-formed XML instead.
>
> I must admit I'm totally confused then ;)
>
> If it is XML, then it is well-formed XML and vice versa. So we are using
> an XML format (good that's
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 03:27:53PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> One problem with XML is that a full parser carries a pretty big
> foot-print along with it, and it also introduces Yet Another
> Dependency. Finally, no good free C++ XML parsers are really available
> at this point to
John Levon wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 03:27:53PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
>
> > One problem with XML is that a full parser carries a pretty big
> > foot-print along with it, and it also introduces Yet Another
> > Dependency. Finally, no good free C++ XML parsers are really
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 03:27:53PM +0200, Asger K. Alstrup Nielsen wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, John Levon wrote:
>
> > > No, I don't think you understand what I mean by XML-like. Let's call
> > > it well-formed XML instead.
>
> I guess the point is that we don't want to a full-blown XML parser
On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 04:16:30PM +0200, Edwin Leuven wrote:
> > So that XML parsers will handle it. (but I don't think we want to use
> > xml parsers (perhaps a sax parser))
>
> For what it's worth, the Qt doc states:
>
> The XML module provides a well-formed XML parser using the SAX2
>
90 matches
Mail list logo
