Re: HTML conversions [Resolved]

2016-11-16 Thread Scott Kostyshak
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 09:59:27AM +1300, gordon cooper wrote:
>  This problem has been fixed. A work-around from my colleague was
> simple. The function with a double dash that could not be converted
> to html is now displayed as an image copied from the screen.

Thanks for posting back this creative solution! Glad it is fixed.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: HTML conversions [Resolved]

2016-11-16 Thread gordon cooper

 This problem has been fixed. A work-around from my colleague was
simple. The function with a double dash that could not be converted
to html is now displayed as an image copied from the screen.

Thanks to those who offered advice.

Gordon.





Re: HTML conversions

2016-11-15 Thread gordon cooper



On 15/11/16 08:41, gordon cooper wrote:



On 14/11/16 22:28, Guenter Milde wrote:

On 2016-11-13, gordon cooper wrote:


[-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: 8bit --]
/
Several months ago when we were using lyx 2.1.*, the expression
/LyX Document
"-*rw-r‑‑r‑‑ *newbie users 277 Jan 7 14:42 .asoundrc" exported
correctly to an html file.
We are now working with lyx 2.2.2. The same export gives this result,
"-/rw-r\SpecialChar nobreakdash\SpecialChar nobreakdashr\SpecialChar
nobreakdash\SpecialChar nobreakdash /newbie users 277 Jan 7 14:42 
.asoundrc"
The double hypen is not being recognised, it is a legitimate piece 
of code.


The string you sent uses 2011NON-BREAKING HYPHEN for the double 
dashes.
This is correctly converted to \nobreakdash- in the generated LaTeX 
file.


What happens, if you use only 002DHYPHEN-MINUS

   -*rw-r--r-- *newbie users 277 Jan 7 14:42 .asoundrc
   which LyX 2.2 converts to

   -{*}rw-r-{}-r-{}- {*}newbie users 277 Jan 7 14:42 .asoundrc
   ?



This happened when exporting to html.
Something has changed.
Yes, there was some work on the dashes and double dashes. However 
this was

meant to be an improvement.

Depending on how the no-break-hyphens got into your document, your
problem may turn out to be an actual improvement (uncover a hithero
hidden problem) or an unwanted side-effect.


An export to Lyx html does give a correct result.

So using this route is a possible workaround/solution.


Günter

 Yes, that is a work around.  Also we could use an html editor, 
probably Bluefish
to correct the errors in the document. So we are not up against a 
brick wall.

Thanks,
Gordon.


  Sadly, using LyXHTML is not a workaround, the images are held in a 
separate
file and get lost when we convert to odt for our translators.  So the 
only present
solution is a correction with an html editor after exporting with HTML.  
I have looked at
an intermediate step using LateX but the short double dash is likely to 
be converted

into an 'en' dash.

Gordon.



Re: HTML conversions

2016-11-14 Thread gordon cooper



On 14/11/16 22:28, Guenter Milde wrote:

On 2016-11-13, gordon cooper wrote:


[-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: 8bit --]
/
Several months ago when we were using lyx 2.1.*, the expression
/LyX Document
"-*rw-r‑‑r‑‑ *newbie users 277 Jan 7 14:42 .asoundrc"  exported
correctly to an html file.
We are now working with lyx 2.2.2. The same export gives this result,
"-/rw-r\SpecialChar nobreakdash\SpecialChar nobreakdashr\SpecialChar
nobreakdash\SpecialChar nobreakdash /newbie users 277 Jan 7 14:42 .asoundrc"
The double hypen is not being recognised, it is a legitimate piece of code.


The string you sent uses 2011   NON-BREAKING HYPHEN for the double dashes.
This is correctly converted to \nobreakdash- in the generated LaTeX file.

What happens, if you use only 002D  HYPHEN-MINUS

   -*rw-r--r-- *newbie users 277 Jan 7 14:42 .asoundrc
   
which LyX 2.2 converts to


   -{*}rw-r-{}-r-{}- {*}newbie users 277 Jan 7 14:42 .asoundrc
   
?




This happened when exporting to html.
Something has changed.

Yes, there was some work on the dashes and double dashes. However this was
meant to be an improvement.

Depending on how the no-break-hyphens got into your document, your
problem may turn out to be an actual improvement (uncover a hithero
hidden problem) or an unwanted side-effect.


An export to Lyx html does give a correct result.

So using this route is a possible workaround/solution.


Günter

 Yes, that is a work around.  Also we could use an html editor, 
probably Bluefish
to correct the errors in the document. So we are not up against a brick 
wall.

Thanks,
Gordon.


Re: HTML conversions

2016-11-14 Thread Guenter Milde
On 2016-11-13, gordon cooper wrote:

> [-- Type: text/plain, Encoding: 8bit --]

> /
> Several months ago when we were using lyx 2.1.*, the expression

> /LyX Document
> "-*rw-r‑‑r‑‑ *newbie users 277 Jan 7 14:42 .asoundrc"  exported
> correctly to an html file.

> We are now working with lyx 2.2.2. The same export gives this result,
> "-/rw-r\SpecialChar nobreakdash\SpecialChar nobreakdashr\SpecialChar 
> nobreakdash\SpecialChar nobreakdash /newbie users 277 Jan 7 14:42 .asoundrc"

> The double hypen is not being recognised, it is a legitimate piece of code.


The string you sent uses 2011   NON-BREAKING HYPHEN for the double dashes.
This is correctly converted to \nobreakdash- in the generated LaTeX file.

What happens, if you use only 002D  HYPHEN-MINUS

  -*rw-r--r-- *newbie users 277 Jan 7 14:42 .asoundrc
  
which LyX 2.2 converts to  

  -{*}rw-r-{}-r-{}- {*}newbie users 277 Jan 7 14:42 .asoundrc
  
?  


> This happened when exporting to html. 

> Something has changed. 

Yes, there was some work on the dashes and double dashes. However this was
meant to be an improvement.

Depending on how the no-break-hyphens got into your document, your
problem may turn out to be an actual improvement (uncover a hithero
hidden problem) or an unwanted side-effect.

> An export to Lyx html does give a correct result. 

So using this route is a possible workaround/solution.


Günter




Re: HTML conversions

2016-11-13 Thread Scott Kostyshak
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 09:02:00AM +1300, gordon cooper wrote:
> On 14/11/16 07:46, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 07:43:10AM +1300, gordon cooper wrote:
> > 
> > > We are using the converters available from File>Export within Lyx. 
> > > Something
> > > changed there perhaps?
> > Many of those converters use external tools. For example when you export
> > to PDF (pdflatex), LyX calls the program "pdflatex". When you export to
> > HTML, LyX calls usually the program "htlatex" I believe. If the version
> > of the htlatex changed on your system, this would explain it. Note that
> > LyX does not control the version of external tools (except in some
> > specific cases on Windows I think).
> > 
> > Scott
> > 
> > P.S. Please respond to the list.
> Sorry, thought I had replied to the list, had one ear on the radio and not,
> concentrating. A big quake down country in the early hours. My in-box
> currently has over 150 reports of after-shocks.
> 
> Have not intentionally changed any of the tools but one of our team may have
> picked up a new version when he packaged Lyx 2.2.2 for the MX-Linux
> repository.

LyX produces LaTeX which is converted to HTML using htlatex if you
export to "HTML". So it is possible that the way LyX produces LaTeX has
changed in a way that htlatex does not like it. Can you send a minimal
example?

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: HTML conversions

2016-11-13 Thread gordon cooper

On 14/11/16 07:46, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 07:43:10AM +1300, gordon cooper wrote:


We are using the converters available from File>Export within Lyx. Something
changed there perhaps?

Many of those converters use external tools. For example when you export
to PDF (pdflatex), LyX calls the program "pdflatex". When you export to
HTML, LyX calls usually the program "htlatex" I believe. If the version
of the htlatex changed on your system, this would explain it. Note that
LyX does not control the version of external tools (except in some
specific cases on Windows I think).

Scott

P.S. Please respond to the list.

Sorry, thought I had replied to the list, had one ear on the radio and not,
concentrating. A big quake down country in the early hours. My in-box
currently has over 150 reports of after-shocks.

Have not intentionally changed any of the tools but one of our team may have
picked up a new version when he packaged Lyx 2.2.2 for the MX-Linux 
repository.


Gordon.




Re: HTML conversions

2016-11-13 Thread Scott Kostyshak
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 07:43:10AM +1300, gordon cooper wrote:

> We are using the converters available from File>Export within Lyx. Something
> changed there perhaps?

Many of those converters use external tools. For example when you export
to PDF (pdflatex), LyX calls the program "pdflatex". When you export to
HTML, LyX calls usually the program "htlatex" I believe. If the version
of the htlatex changed on your system, this would explain it. Note that
LyX does not control the version of external tools (except in some
specific cases on Windows I think).

Scott

P.S. Please respond to the list.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Re: HTML conversions

2016-11-13 Thread Scott Kostyshak
On Sun, Nov 13, 2016 at 07:39:29PM +1300, gordon cooper wrote:
> /
> Several months ago when we were using lyx 2.1.*, the expression
> 
> /LyX Document
> "-*rw-r‑‑r‑‑ *newbie users 277 Jan 7 14:42 .asoundrc"  exported
> correctly to an html file.
> 
> 
> We are now working with lyx 2.2.2. The same export gives this result,
> "-/rw-r\SpecialChar nobreakdash\SpecialChar nobreakdashr\SpecialChar
> nobreakdash\SpecialChar nobreakdash /newbie users 277 Jan 7 14:42 .asoundrc"
> 
> The double hypen is not being recognised, it is a legitimate piece of code.
> 
> This happened when exporting to html. An export to Lyx html does
> give a correct result. Something has changed. We have checked the
> Lyx dependencies to see if anything in LateX or LiveteX was missing,
> but nothing apparent.

That uses an external tool to do the export. What is your converter for
it? htlatex? Perhaps it is a new version?

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature