Re: all-inclusive file format

[Guenter Milde]

Dear Lyx users,

On 2017-08-17, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:41:17 +0200 Roberto  wrote:
>> On 04/08/2017 17:35, Cris Fuhrman wrote:

> Are you ever going to let this thread die? 

I am not sure whether it is better to let this thread die or to bring it to
a good end.

* a lot of blaming, bashing and bad feelings have been exchanged, but

* a lot of good implementation ideas about an all-inclusive file format came
  up as well.

...

> You've been informed it will break existing things 
...

Well done, an all-inclusive file format will not break anything.
(There is no need to *replace* the existing format with a new one.)

However, given how counter-productive it is to insult developers that
spend their spare time on a project, it may be that

... 
> your best move now is to let this thread die.

and sum up the good points in a feature request at trac.

Günter

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Steve Litt]

On Wed, 16 Aug 2017 15:41:17 +0200
Roberto  wrote:

> On 04/08/2017 17:35, Cris Fuhrman wrote:
> > I support abstracting file details because it makes using LyX
> > easier, but at the same time I would not like to give up control
> > over the modular aspects, such as the custom converters, which I
> > think is a big strength in LyX design. For example, being able to
> > update all my article's figures generated from an R script and not
> > have to change anything in the LyX file is a huge convenience!  
> 
> I guess you can decide when you add a new graphics if LyX has to 
> "ingest" it or leave it where it is, just an option for that graphics.

Are you ever going to let this thread die? You've aleady found that as
many people are against it as for it. You've been informed it will
break existing things (and then you argued about that). You've been
presented with the perfectly good alternative of zipping or tarballing
your document directory, and you found things you didn't like about
that.

Here's why what you want will never get built:

* Developer time is very valuable, with lots of competing improvements.

* Your idea is somewhere between unpopular and lukewarm popular.

* Nobody actually committed to writing the code.

* You never offered to help write the code.

If you value your credibility, your best move now is to let this
thread die.

SteveT

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Roberto]

On 04/08/2017 17:35, Cris Fuhrman wrote:
I support abstracting file details because it makes using LyX easier, 
but at the same time I would not like to give up control over the 
modular aspects, such as the custom converters, which I think is a big 
strength in LyX design. For example, being able to update all my 
article's figures generated from an R script and not have to change 
anything in the LyX file is a huge convenience!


I guess you can decide when you add a new graphics if LyX has to 
"ingest" it or leave it where it is, just an option for that graphics.

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Dr Eberhard Lisse]

And there you have it, all scripts (and workflows) broken. Every single
one.

el

On 02/08/2017 22:45, Roberto wrote:
> On 02/08/2017 01:20, Steve Litt wrote:
>> breaking everybody's scripts and work flow
[...]
> at worse it requires a one line change in your script to say where the
> .lyx file actually resides.
[...]

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Dr Eberhard Lisse]

Yada, yada, yada, whatever...

el


On 02/08/2017 22:42, Roberto wrote:
> On 02/08/2017 13:10, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
>> one paragraph
> Ricardo has expressed a great truth in just one sentence:
>   "it seems that on this thread is slowly surfacing one of the worst
> sins of open source communities: the attitude of "it's easy for me, then
> it must be easy for you too, you lazy looser".
> 
> If you are not able to see how powerful is his synthesis, then I am
> sorry, we are too far to hope to have a productive discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Roberto]

On 02/08/2017 01:20, Steve Litt wrote:

breaking everybody's scripts and work flow
are you saying that a script that now works on a .lyx file would not 
work on a LyXar that contains (as a folder) a .lyx file? why would that 
be the case? at worse it requires a one line change in your script to 
say where the .lyx file actually resides.


maybe I am missing something, would you mind pointing it out explicitly?

thanks
roberto

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Roberto]

On 02/08/2017 13:10, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:

one paragraph

Ricardo has expressed a great truth in just one sentence:
  "it seems that on this thread is slowly surfacing one of the worst 
sins of open source communities: the attitude of "it's easy for me, then 
it must be easy for you too, you lazy looser".


If you are not able to see how powerful is his synthesis, then I am 
sorry, we are too far to hope to have a productive discussion.

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Dr Eberhard Lisse]

On 01/08/2017 21:21, Roberto wrote:
> On 01/08/2017 18:13, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
>>
>> Talking about computer-unsavvy:
[...]
> Your point being? that one example sets a rule?

The point being that this was quite computer-unsavvy.

>> You can not ask from collaborators to set up a GIT repo, but, yes,
>> you can ask collaborators using LyX anyway, to check out/in LyX files
>> from within LyX (because it hides GIT quite well).
>>
>> It's difficult.
> 
> Your humble opinion. And in any case just a consequence of the way the
> code is made at the moment.

You are contradicting yourself a little here. Even though that your are
most welcome to contribute the code.

>>  And it's not really necessary.
>>
> Again your humblest opinion.

This thread is nothing but an exchange of opinions.

[...]
>> And, my observation over the years (linux user # 1387 :-)-O), the
>> people squealing loudest for features in Open Source software are the
>> ones that fund the least.
>
> Your point being? that #1387 knows it all? (until #1386 comes and
> overrules him? :P ) ... come on! Ricardo is making a fair point, you
> are telling stories ... instead you should reflect on what he is
> saying!

The point being that Ricard has used linux for many years (you cut that
off, conveniently) and has opinions and experience, and I have been
using linux for many years and have opinions and experience, one of
which is that the people squealing loudest for features in Open Source
software are the ones that fund the least.

> Maybe it does not apply to you personally as a developer (if you are a
> developer, I do not know, sorry for not knowing your biography #1386),

The number was 1387 and not 1386, actually.

> but I can support Ricardo on this. He is not the first one who I hear
> reporting this type of behavior when interacting with open source
> developers.

I am not a software developer, I am a gynecologist in a developing
country, even though I have done a wee bit of (internet) development
related stuff.


> Frankly it does not sound absurd at all even if you do not anything
> about software, but you know something about human beings. Is quite
> easy to imagine the possibility that people in a somewhat dominating
> position on an issue might abuse of this position. In this particular
> case someone knows the code and manages it. Some other person just has
> a (maybe nice, maybe terrible) idea on how to develop the software
> further and the "knowledgeable" person just uses what he/she knows or
> his manager power to reject what other bring to discussion. Even if
> the idea is truly bad, what happens is a bit like a 5th grade teacher
> making fun of the students who suggests to compute a square root by
> some incorrect method. Is it necessary or helpful for the community to
> mistreat people?  I only see a cheap way to pump up one's ego in doing
> such things.

Quite a bit of nonsense you manage to condense into one paragraph, off
topic.

> I have to say that this is quite common phenomenon when talking in
> message boards like this one and I have read often bad reaction of
> this type from developers. Ricardo has synthesized the issue in a very
> clear and concise manner, which must mean he has seen it happening
> quite a bit and thought about it a lot, otherwise such synthesis would
> not be achieved.

So why start this thread?

> I think we should all reflect on this. In my opinion if an open
> source project goes somewhere or nowhere depends to a large extent
> on this kind of things, not just on features missing with respect to
> alternative software, or any other technical aspect of it. If you
> remove the social aspect of open source, it would clearly limp ...

This is not comp.fuzzy.feelings but gmane.editors.lyx.general.

el

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Steve Litt]

On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 21:56:33 +0200
Roberto  wrote:

> On 31/07/2017 19:10, Steve Litt wrote:
> > The ability to directly edit graphics within a LyX file would be a
> > nice *option*:  
> Hi Steve, I hope I am quoting you correctly by only reporting the 
> sentence I want to comment about.
> 
> As far as I can understand the feature I am talking about does not 
> require _editing_ graphics. It just requires an option (which can be
> set as default as well) to copy any graphics the user pastes or links
> into a hidden folder that is managed LyX. Documents at that point
> become "LyX archives" made of a "myfile.lyx" and a
> ".stuff_for_myfile" folder, nicely archived into a single thing, that
> you may call a .LyXar (archive file). You have a script for .lyx
> file, you can still use it on all .lyx files and you can use it as
> well for .LyXar because all you need to do is unzip the file, work on
> the .lyx, and zip it again ...
> 
> You went a long way in your message, partly, I presume, on the idea
> of _editing_ graphics in LyX, but this is not what I was talking
> about. Let me know if I have misunderstood your words ...

Being able to click components within an "archive" type of file format
is about the only benefit I see. Which is why I brought it up. Without
even that benefit, I don't see the point in changing the file format
and breaking everybody's scripts and work flow.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
July 2017 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Roberto]

On 01/08/2017 18:13, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:




Talking about computer-unsavvy:

The wife of a friend of mine demands that he install MSWord for her
because she was using it in a course. He installs NeoOffice. She then
gives him a serious hard time demanding he install MSWord or else
because she could not print her paper.

So he asks her how she printed in the course: "I click on the printer"
(button). So he tells her to look for a button that looked similar to a
printer. She finds it, cklicks and nothing happens.

So, of course, she proceeds to give him a serious hard time demanding
he install MSWord or else!

A minute later their 10 year old comes out of the living room where he
has been playing on the XBox with a few printed pages and says: "Did
someone print this on the printer in the living room?"



Your point being? that one example sets a rule?




You can not ask from collaborators to set up a GIT repo, but, yes, you
can ask collaborators using LyX anyway, to check out/in LyX files from
within LyX (because it hides GIT quite well).





It's difficult.


Your humble opinion. And in any case just a consequence of the way the 
code is made at the moment.


 And it's not really necessary.




Again your humblest opinion.



12 years ago I was writing all my practice documents in LyX (already).
Got them all sorted (see the script above).

ODF documents come along as a ZIP file which has bunches of files inside...

And, my observation over the years (linux user # 1387 :-)-O), the
people squealing loudest for features in Open Source software are the
ones that fund the least.


Your point being? that #1387 knows it all? (until #1386 comes and 
overrules him? :P ) ... come on! Ricardo is making a fair point, you are 
telling stories ... instead you should reflect on what he is saying!


Maybe it does not apply to you personally as a developer (if you are a 
developer, I do not know, sorry for not knowing your biography #1386), 
but I can support Ricardo on this. He is not the first one who I hear 
reporting this type of behavior when interacting with open source 
developers.
Frankly  it does not sound absurd at all even if you do not anything 
about software, but you know something about human beings. Is quite easy 
to imagine the possibility that people in a somewhat dominating position 
on an issue might abuse of this position. In this particular case 
someone knows the code and manages it. Some other person just has a 
(maybe nice, maybe terrible) idea on how to develop the software further 
and the "knowledgeable" person just uses what he/she knows or his 
manager power to reject what other bring to discussion. Even if the idea 
is truly bad, what happens is a bit like a 5th grade teacher making fun 
of the students who suggests to compute a square root by some incorrect 
method. Is it necessary or helpful for the community to mistreat people? 
I only see a cheap way to pump up one's ego in doing such things.


I have to say that this is quite common phenomenon when talking in 
message boards like this one and I have read often bad reaction of this 
type from developers. Ricardo has synthesized the issue in a very clear 
and concise manner, which must mean he has seen it happening quite a bit 
and thought about it a lot, otherwise such synthesis would not be achieved.


I think we should all reflect on this. In my opinion if an open source 
project goes somewhere or nowhere depends to a large extent on this kind 
of things, not just on features missing with respect to alternative 
software, or any other technical aspect of it. If you remove the social 
aspect of open source, it would clearly limp ...




greetings, el

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Roberto]

On 31/07/2017 19:10, Steve Litt wrote:

The ability to directly edit graphics within a LyX file would be a nice
*option*:
Hi Steve, I hope I am quoting you correctly by only reporting the 
sentence I want to comment about.


As far as I can understand the feature I am talking about does not 
require _editing_ graphics. It just requires an option (which can be set 
as default as well) to copy any graphics the user pastes or links into a 
hidden folder that is managed LyX. Documents at that point become "LyX 
archives" made of a "myfile.lyx" and a ".stuff_for_myfile" folder, 
nicely archived into a single thing, that you may call a .LyXar (archive 
file). You have a script for .lyx file, you can still use it on all .lyx 
files and you can use it as well for .LyXar because all you need to do 
is unzip the file, work on the .lyx, and zip it again ...


You went a long way in your message, partly, I presume, on the idea of 
_editing_ graphics in LyX, but this is not what I was talking about. Let 
me know if I have misunderstood your words ...

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Roberto]

On 31/07/2017 14:31, Helge Hafting wrote:



Den 27. juli 2017 19:48, skrev Richard Heck:

On 07/27/2017 11:52 AM, Roberto wrote:

Hi Richard, thanks for bringing in your experience.

If the tar.gz was something you can "mount" like a read-write DMG it
would make sense to say that the archive does what I have in mind. As
far as I know one can open DMG files and edit them and close them,
effectively saving the content. The way it is now with tar.gz for me
it is good only for archival purposes.

In theory, this could probably be done using fusefs on Linux, but that's
not a general solution, and we don't automatically add images, say, to
the archive when you add a picture.

Isn't fusefs overkill?
LyX does its work in a temp folder anyway.

To support working with a single file containing a folder with file.lyx 
and several figures, just have LyX unpack that archive to the temp 
folder. Let the user edit the document. Since all the graphichs are 
unpacked too, they can be edited with their appropriate external editors 
if needed. When the author saves, LyX recreates the archive file and 
overwrites the original. (LyX knows this is a all-in-one document, 
because it was opened as such.) When LyX is closed, the temp directory 
goes away as usual.


This should give us:
* Backward compatibility.
   - Those preferring figures as separate files see no change.
   - Existing documents works as always

* Those wanting an archive can "save as archive" (not export, but save).
  - Then they get an archive containing the document and all included 
stuff. (graphics, subdocuments, external insets).  The original graphics 
files etc. must be kept - they may be in use for other purposes too. But 
no longer in use by the now archived document - it has its own copies of 
everything.
  - To reverse the process, someone who opened an archive may use 
"File->convert to separate files". This replaces the archive file with 
the folder containing separate files.



Seems that this approach would fulfil Roberts wish for 
user-friendliness, without ruining things for the single-files crowd. 
LyX could mostly work "as usual", with the archiving code mostly dealing 
with "open" and "save". And of course, every graphic the user adds to a 
document while in archive mode.


There is the question of what to do about inclusion of a graphic that 
exist higher up in the directory tree. I believe the user-friendly way 
would be to copy such things into the archive folder - possibly in a 
subfolder. That way, no links outside the archive so no problems when 
opening the archive on another computer. Might waste space, but nobody 
is forced to use this.


Helge Hafting



Hi Helge, I think the way you are outlining the functionality is very 
good! It does indeed help users to have everything they need for that 
document in a single place, and at the same time allows anybody who 
wants to keep working with the current style of LyX document to keep 
working as usual.
For sake of having just everything I think is not too bad a compromise 
to waste some space by copying files that reside at upper level in the 
directory structure and duplicate them in a subfolder managed by LyX.

Best,
Roberto

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Dr Eberhard Lisse]

Ricardo

I don't demand from my secretaries that they write scripts to find the
reports all cases of a particular operation (myomectomies) which I have
performed in a particular manner (20nce 2004)

#!/bin/bash
cat > t.tex <> t.tex
cat >>t.tex < It may also mean "people without spare time trying to move on with
> their lives".
>
> Seriously, and forgive me for the off-topic here, but it seems that on
> this thread is slowly surfacing one of the worst sins of open source
> communities: the attitude of "it's easy for me, then it must be easy
> for you too, you lazy looser".
>
> Well, usually it's not easy. And people is neither lazy nor lousy nor
> anything. For most people on the world computers are just boxes they
> use to complete a task they don't even want to do. There is nothing
> they should be ashamed of if they don't care about the "superiority
> of X approach compared to the evil Y", specially if X requires a long
> learning process.
>
> You cannot tell a normal person "if you want to write in
> collaboration, just use git". You cannot say to anyone, not even to
> me, someone that's been using Linux as his main system for the last
> two decades, to "use make". That attitude is not only wrong, it is
> one of the main reasons why we are still a minority on the consumer
> market. If your answers are targeted to computer wise persons, only
> computer wise person will listen to you.
>
> As I said, I started to use F(L)OSS almost two decades ago. I'm using
> LyX since before it switched to Qt. Back then I compiled every new
> version by myself. But even with my experience I would have loved to
> have an "everything within the file" file format when, twelve years
> ago, I was writing my PhD thesis on LyX: at the time I did not had an
> internet connection at home so syncing all the files was a real PITA.
> Even now, in a time with automated backup utilities, usb drives and
> cloud storage I found the lack of an easy way to work on a "project"
> instead of "fiddling with several folders, each with dozens if not
> hundreds of files" quite cumbersome.
>
> And another thing: the fact that MS implemented some idea does not
> means the idea is bad, saying so it's silly. A lot of F(L)OSS projects
> use "all within the file" file formats: ODF, and open source ISO
> standard, it's just a bunch of xml files and folders comfortably
> packed on a zip file. Also, can you even imagine what would be to work
> on krita or gimp if those projects just save all layers and masks on
> different files?
>
> Please, people, think a bit on real users, not just on yourselves.
>
> Thanks. [end of off-topic]
> 
> Regards,
> Ricardo
[...]

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Pavel Sanda]

Roberto wrote:
> On 30/07/2017 19:13, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
>> If you use dropbox, can't you just put ALL the files there and edit
>> from there?
>
> The feature I am talking about does the work for you. When the machine 
> works for you, you win. The machine is your friend.

To wrap it up little bit. The idea of bundled lyx format is nothing new and
there were already serious attempts to implemented it in the LyX codebase as
an option (the current link-to-images philosophy is for sure to stay as a
default).

At the time the showstoppers were technical issues mainly involving
security concerns (how much info about the directory structure around
are you allowed to leak into the bundled file, etc). The discussion
unfortunatelly became so heated that we had to revert the already
implemented machinery and even lost one lyx developer...

So I would say that your wish is defintely shared among the developers,
but the change is not so simple and the devil is hidden in the details.
But one day... :)
If there was actually larger number of people who would like to donate
money for such project, we could create section for it at
http://www.lyx.org/Donate ...

As of now you have basically three workarounds and none of it is really
yo mama solution:
1. lyx archive (tar.gz)
2. sharing via networked filesystem (nfs,sshfs,dropbox)
3. version control (RCS,SVN,Git)
plus combinations of the above.

Pavel

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Steve Litt]

On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:52:55 +0200
Roberto  wrote:

> Hi Scott, thanks for your suggestion.
>   The archive does not really do the job because you cannot edit it 
> directly. My goal is to get something like a MS Word document that 
> contains all the pictures you add in it and you can send it as a
> single file.
> Cheers,
> Roberto

Everybody: If you respond to anything in this post, please please
PLEASE interleave post
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style) so
everyone knows what question you're answering, what assertion you're
commenting on, etc. Software design requires specificity, and is
brought to its knees by ambiguity. If your phone won't let you
interleave post, for the purposes of descendents of this post, please do
it from a regular computer.

Hi Roberto,

The ability to directly edit graphics within a LyX file would be a nice
*option*: perhaps handy feature for some. Personally I prefer having a
graphics file as a graphics file that I can edit in Inkscape or Vim or
a home-grown shellscript. So if it comes to be at all, it should be an
option: Not a forced conversion of workflow.

Beyond that, please understand what you're asking for. You're asking
for a complete restructuring of LyX native format. Such a format change
will break thousands and thousands of scripts LyX users have written
over the years to automate or augment LyX. Occasionally the LyX native
format undergoes major changes and we script-owners have to change our
scripts, but those native format changes are for much more vital
reasons than the ability to click on a picture and pull it up in the
editor of your choice (or navigate a long, convoluted menu to pull it up
in something else). And I'm pretty sure the change you suggest would be
the single biggest change in history to the LyX native format.

You mentioned LyX being more like MSWord or LibreOffice. Copy a
LibreOffice document to an empty,  unused directory, and perform the
following command:

unzip mydoc.odt

Use an editor to really look at all the files you just created. Keep in
mind that all those files are interdependent,  such that putting an
extra sentence in content.xml often requires changes to the other
files. LyX is a fairly DIY friendly native format. LibreOffice (and I'd
presume MSWord) is "no serviceable parts inside." Implementing your
request would eliminate whole categories of current LyX use.

At one point in the thread you mentioned "ordinary users", and how they
won't adopt LyX as-is. That's been my observation, as well. But as
Abraham Lincoln so aptly put it, you can't please all the people all
the time. If you remanufacture software to please the non-technical
drag and drop crowd, you lose the DIY crowd. And vice versa. There are
things you can do to accommodate both, but changing the native format
isn't such a thing.

And there's this question: Imagine you re-manufactured LyX to act like
LibreOffice but with better output. Would people use LyX, or continue
to use LibreOffice? The software world isn't a meritocracy.

Another question: Do you really want "ordinary users" at all? So far,
this mailing list has had the benefit of people who could succinctly
state a symptom description and submit a minimal working example of a
symptom. Do you really want this mailing list cluttered by people
unable to run a command or differentiate between LyX and a browser?

You bring up an interesting point, and your difficulty in
collaboration is both a real problem and one experienced by everyone,
but the cost of your proposed solution is too high.

Roberto, what I'd recommend is that you start a new project that zips
up a directory in an intelligent way, including only files called for
by the master document and its descendents. Your project can include
ways to prevent overriding a newer directory tree.

Is my suggestion as "integrated" as if it were handled by LyX? No. Is
it as pretty? No. Is it as foolproof? No. Is it as easy to program?
Yeah,  by a factor of fifty or more. I bet you can have a prototype
running in a few hours, and a real project ready in 50. When it comes
to GUIizing the program, try Python Kivy: VERY fast development. Or you
could make it a browser app with Python Bottle.
 
SteveT

Steve Litt 
July 2017 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Richard Heck]

On 07/31/2017 08:31 AM, Helge Hafting wrote:
>
>
> Den 27. juli 2017 19:48, skrev Richard Heck:
>> On 07/27/2017 11:52 AM, Roberto wrote:
>>> Hi Richard, thanks for bringing in your experience.
>>>
>>> If the tar.gz was something you can "mount" like a read-write DMG it
>>> would make sense to say that the archive does what I have in mind. As
>>> far as I know one can open DMG files and edit them and close them,
>>> effectively saving the content. The way it is now with tar.gz for me
>>> it is good only for archival purposes.
>> In theory, this could probably be done using fusefs on Linux, but that's
>> not a general solution, and we don't automatically add images, say, to
>> the archive when you add a picture.
>
> Isn't fusefs overkill?

Yes, I was suggesting it only as a temporary solution.

> LyX does its work in a temp folder anyway.
>
> To support working with a single file containing a folder with
> file.lyx and several figures, just have LyX unpack that archive to the
> temp folder. Let the user edit the document. Since all the graphichs
> are unpacked too, they can be edited with their appropriate external
> editors if needed. When the author saves, LyX recreates the archive
> file and overwrites the original. (LyX knows this is a all-in-one
> document, because it was opened as such.) When LyX is closed, the temp
> directory goes away as usual.
>
> This should give us:
> * Backward compatibility.
>   - Those preferring figures as separate files see no change.
>   - Existing documents works as always
>
> * Those wanting an archive can "save as archive" (not export, but save).
>  - Then they get an archive containing the document and all included
> stuff. (graphics, subdocuments, external insets).  The original
> graphics files etc. must be kept - they may be in use for other
> purposes too. But no longer in use by the now archived document - it
> has its own copies of everything.
>  - To reverse the process, someone who opened an archive may use
> "File->convert to separate files". This replaces the archive file with
> the folder containing separate files.

This is precisely what I had in mind.

> Seems that this approach would fulfil Roberts wish for
> user-friendliness, without ruining things for the single-files crowd.
> LyX could mostly work "as usual", with the archiving code mostly
> dealing with "open" and "save". And of course, every graphic the user
> adds to a document while in archive mode.
>
> There is the question of what to do about inclusion of a graphic that
> exist higher up in the directory tree. I believe the user-friendly way
> would be to copy such things into the archive folder - possibly in a
> subfolder. 

Enrico's LyX archiver already solves this problem...somehow. It doesn't
matter a tremendous amount how, since the user won't actually see the
structure here, unless they manually unpack it.

Richard

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Helge Hafting]

Den 27. juli 2017 19:48, skrev Richard Heck:

On 07/27/2017 11:52 AM, Roberto wrote:

Hi Richard, thanks for bringing in your experience.

If the tar.gz was something you can "mount" like a read-write DMG it
would make sense to say that the archive does what I have in mind. As
far as I know one can open DMG files and edit them and close them,
effectively saving the content. The way it is now with tar.gz for me
it is good only for archival purposes.

In theory, this could probably be done using fusefs on Linux, but that's
not a general solution, and we don't automatically add images, say, to
the archive when you add a picture.

Isn't fusefs overkill?
LyX does its work in a temp folder anyway.

To support working with a single file containing a folder with file.lyx 
and several figures, just have LyX unpack that archive to the temp 
folder. Let the user edit the document. Since all the graphichs are 
unpacked too, they can be edited with their appropriate external editors 
if needed. When the author saves, LyX recreates the archive file and 
overwrites the original. (LyX knows this is a all-in-one document, 
because it was opened as such.) When LyX is closed, the temp directory 
goes away as usual.


This should give us:
* Backward compatibility.
  - Those preferring figures as separate files see no change.
  - Existing documents works as always

* Those wanting an archive can "save as archive" (not export, but save).
 - Then they get an archive containing the document and all included 
stuff. (graphics, subdocuments, external insets).  The original graphics 
files etc. must be kept - they may be in use for other purposes too. But 
no longer in use by the now archived document - it has its own copies of 
everything.
 - To reverse the process, someone who opened an archive may use 
"File->convert to separate files". This replaces the archive file with 
the folder containing separate files.



Seems that this approach would fulfil Roberts wish for 
user-friendliness, without ruining things for the single-files crowd. 
LyX could mostly work "as usual", with the archiving code mostly dealing 
with "open" and "save". And of course, every graphic the user adds to a 
document while in archive mode.


There is the question of what to do about inclusion of a graphic that 
exist higher up in the directory tree. I believe the user-friendly way 
would be to copy such things into the archive folder - possibly in a 
subfolder. That way, no links outside the archive so no problems when 
opening the archive on another computer. Might waste space, but nobody 
is forced to use this.


Helge Hafting

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Roberto]

On 29/07/2017 13:39, Annaert Jan wrote:
Despite my pleas, some of my colleagues have already shied away from 
using LyX because of these unnecessary hurdles,


In 13 years of using LyX and after tens of scientific papers written I 
have never managed to convince collaborators to use LyX, why? because 
they know how to use LaTeX and prefer to go low-level, then git, make, 
blah blah ...


In the same 13 years of using LyX I have tried a number of times to get 
normal people (yes they exist! be aware of them, they are the majority!) 
to use LyX in place of other WYSIWYG like OpenOffice or MS Word. Well 
they shied away, as you say, because LyX still bears some traces of the 
low-level coding world of LaTeX. To me this is a good feature, because I 
love to be able to embed some LaTeX here and there, to really get the 
document I want down to the tiniest detail, but there also should be a 
way of using LyX that targets the opposite side of the spectrum of 
users, those who want to do cut and paste of their pictures (a features 
that appeared some years back as far as I can remember) and forget about 
where the pictures are stored. Possibly they will use LyX to paste and 
forget the images of their cat and then they will send it as an 
attachment to you, but that is another story ... :)

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Roberto]

On 30/07/2017 19:13, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:

If you use dropbox, can't you just put ALL the files there and edit
from there?


The feature I am talking about does the work for you. When the machine 
works for you, you win. The machine is your friend.


Look at the following scenario. Alice and Bob are using dropbox to share 
a LyX document and Alice is making a plot. She keeps producing different 
versions of the file and puts them in the folder "./Pictures" (that you 
know and love so much!).
As she keeps producing more versions of the picture she has cluttered 
the folder with unnecessary files. After one day is time for clean-up. 
Now she has to find all the files that are actually used in the file and 
delete those that are not.


What I normally do is to rename the folder "Pictures" so that LyX 
complains it cannot find the source file and then I replace one by one 
the files I am really using. This slow and painful.


I am _sure_ you have smart way of doing the same with a script, git, and 
some other exotic tool that every granma knows how to use from the time 
of World War II, but has ever occurred to you that all this work is just 
entirely spared if you use a file format that internally saves all the 
used external files?



PS
I think the example of GIMP layers is a great example to exaggerate the 
situation.

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Roberto]

Oh my god, finally somebody with a Keyboard and a Heart showed up!
I have to say that is often the case that I find this kind of resistance 
in open-source developers communities - sometimes I wonder what is 
really "open" there!?







It may also mean "people without spare time trying to move on with their 
lives".


Seriously, and forgive me for the off-topic here, but it seems that on 
this thread is slowly surfacing one of the worst sins of open source 
communities: the attitude of "it's easy for me, then it must be easy for 
you too, you lazy looser".


Well, usually it's not easy. And people is neither lazy nor lousy nor 
anything. For most people on the world computers are just boxes they use 
to complete a task they don't even want to do. There is nothing they 
should be ashamed of if they don't care about the "superiority of X 
approach compared to the evil Y", specially if X requires a long 
learning process.


You cannot tell a normal person "if you want to write in collaboration, 
just use git". You cannot say to anyone, not even to me, someone that's 
been using Linux as his main system for the last two decades, to "use 
make". That attitude is not only wrong, it is one of the main reasons 
why we are still a minority on the consumer market. If your answers are 
targeted to computer wise persons, only computer wise person will listen 
to you.


As I said, I started to use F(L)OSS almost two decades ago. I'm using 
LyX since before it switched to Qt. Back then I compiled every new 
version by myself. But even with my experience I would have loved to 
have an "everything within the file" file format when, twelve years ago, 
I was writing my PhD thesis on LyX: at the time I did not had an 
internet connection at home so syncing all the files was a real PITA. 
Even now, in a time with automated backup utilities, usb drives and 
cloud storage I found the lack of an easy way to work on a "project" 
instead of "fiddling with several folders, each with dozens if not 
hundreds of files" quite cumbersome.


And another thing: the fact that MS implemented some idea does not means 
the idea is bad, saying so it's silly. A lot of F(L)OSS projects use 
"all within the file" file formats: ODF, and open source ISO standard, 
it's just a bunch of xml files and folders comfortably packed on a zip 
file. Also, can you even imagine what would be to work on krita or gimp 
if those projects just save all layers and masks on different files?


Please, people, think a bit on real users, not just on yourselves.

Thanks. [end of off-topic]

Regards,
Ricardo

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Ricardo Berlasso]

2017-07-30 19:13 GMT+02:00 Dr Eberhard Lisse :

> Roberto,
>
> If you use dropbox, can't you just put ALL the files there and edit
> from there?
>
> I am using a Mac and I can open and save files from LyX on the dropbox
> directories, including generating the PDF, so I am sure something
> similar will work on Windoze.
>
> I would them use Version Control and make sure your collaborators use
> that when editing their files.
>
> https://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/VersionControlInstallationAndUsage
>
> Now that you mention it, my mother, 23 years ago, at 64, never having
> touched a computer before, figured out how to use UUPC and MicroEmacs
> on DOS, so she could email me in Namibia :-)-O.
>
> For full disclosure I must confess that I wrote her a wrapper script
> (3000 lines BAT :-)-O), bought her the modem (1200/2400 baud and I
> think at that stage still illegal in Germany) and set up her uucp
> neighbor.
>
> To ask for a rewrite because (presumably academic) collaborators, can't
> handle a few clicks makes no sense to me.
>
> "computer-unsavvy" is Latin for lazy, right?
>

It may also mean "people without spare time trying to move on with their
lives".

Seriously, and forgive me for the off-topic here, but it seems that on this
thread is slowly surfacing one of the worst sins of open source
communities: the attitude of "it's easy for me, then it must be easy for
you too, you lazy looser".

Well, usually it's not easy. And people is neither lazy nor lousy nor
anything. For most people on the world computers are just boxes they use to
complete a task they don't even want to do. There is nothing they should be
ashamed of if they don't care about the "superiority of X approach compared
to the evil Y", specially if X requires a long learning process.

You cannot tell a normal person "if you want to write in collaboration,
just use git". You cannot say to anyone, not even to me, someone that's
been using Linux as his main system for the last two decades, to "use
make". That attitude is not only wrong, it is one of the main reasons why
we are still a minority on the consumer market. If your answers are
targeted to computer wise persons, only computer wise person will listen to
you.

As I said, I started to use F(L)OSS almost two decades ago. I'm using LyX
since before it switched to Qt. Back then I compiled every new version by
myself. But even with my experience I would have loved to have an
"everything within the file" file format when, twelve years ago, I was
writing my PhD thesis on LyX: at the time I did not had an internet
connection at home so syncing all the files was a real PITA. Even now, in a
time with automated backup utilities, usb drives and cloud storage I found
the lack of an easy way to work on a "project" instead of "fiddling with
several folders, each with dozens if not hundreds of files" quite
cumbersome.

And another thing: the fact that MS implemented some idea does not means
the idea is bad, saying so it's silly. A lot of F(L)OSS projects use "all
within the file" file formats: ODF, and open source ISO standard, it's just
a bunch of xml files and folders comfortably packed on a zip file. Also,
can you even imagine what would be to work on krita or gimp if those
projects just save all layers and masks on different files?

Please, people, think a bit on real users, not just on yourselves.

Thanks. [end of off-topic]

Regards,
Ricardo



>
> el
>
>
> On 2017-07-29 11:55 , Roberto wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Make is your friend.
> >
> > I collaborate on dropbox with make-unfriendly computer-unsavvy people,
> > make is not an option - and this is not such an uncommon case I guess!
> > Instead, an _editable_ file format that __guarantees__ you have all is
> > needed to compile the file is a haven for data integrity.
> >
> > All the rest, I am sorry, is too geeky-pretensions-minded in my
> > opinion.  This kind of thinking in my opinion is ultimately the
> > reason of the same attitude that causes some people never get over
> > the learning curve of LaTeX. Do you want to collaborate with just
> > computer skilled people? or you want to collaborate on writing just
> > as effectively with just anybody? if you opt for the second, then LyX
> > is a great solution, but the need to carry around figures is still
> > a burden for some. Is this clear? (I said for some, maybe is not a
> > problem for me, not a problem for you, but is a problem for the other
> > half of the world! try to wear their shoes every now and then!)
> >
> > So, if you wanted to use make, then for most users you can as well
> > suggest to use LaTeX on vi :) is as much difficulty (infinity!)! Going
> > by this token one always ends up saying "my current implementation
> > can do it, just do 1), 2). 3) n) steps, but what effort does it
> > take? Before answering think about your grandma having to do it ...
>
>

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Dr Eberhard Lisse]

Roberto,

If you use dropbox, can't you just put ALL the files there and edit
from there?

I am using a Mac and I can open and save files from LyX on the dropbox
directories, including generating the PDF, so I am sure something
similar will work on Windoze.

I would them use Version Control and make sure your collaborators use
that when editing their files.

https://wiki.lyx.org/LyX/VersionControlInstallationAndUsage

Now that you mention it, my mother, 23 years ago, at 64, never having
touched a computer before, figured out how to use UUPC and MicroEmacs
on DOS, so she could email me in Namibia :-)-O.

For full disclosure I must confess that I wrote her a wrapper script
(3000 lines BAT :-)-O), bought her the modem (1200/2400 baud and I
think at that stage still illegal in Germany) and set up her uucp
neighbor.

To ask for a rewrite because (presumably academic) collaborators, can't
handle a few clicks makes no sense to me.

"computer-unsavvy" is Latin for lazy, right?

el


On 2017-07-29 11:55 , Roberto wrote:
> 
>>
>> Make is your friend.
>
> I collaborate on dropbox with make-unfriendly computer-unsavvy people,
> make is not an option - and this is not such an uncommon case I guess!
> Instead, an _editable_ file format that __guarantees__ you have all is
> needed to compile the file is a haven for data integrity.
>
> All the rest, I am sorry, is too geeky-pretensions-minded in my
> opinion.  This kind of thinking in my opinion is ultimately the
> reason of the same attitude that causes some people never get over
> the learning curve of LaTeX. Do you want to collaborate with just
> computer skilled people? or you want to collaborate on writing just
> as effectively with just anybody? if you opt for the second, then LyX
> is a great solution, but the need to carry around figures is still
> a burden for some. Is this clear? (I said for some, maybe is not a
> problem for me, not a problem for you, but is a problem for the other
> half of the world! try to wear their shoes every now and then!)
>
> So, if you wanted to use make, then for most users you can as well
> suggest to use LaTeX on vi :) is as much difficulty (infinity!)! Going
> by this token one always ends up saying "my current implementation
> can do it, just do 1), 2). 3) n) steps, but what effort does it
> take? Before answering think about your grandma having to do it ...

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Roberto]

On 29/07/2017 13:30, Charlie wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:55:35 +0200
Roberto  wrote:


Before answering think about your grandma having to do it ...


Would she be happy to use msword?

Charlie

She does not use it, because it so unstable, which hinders her learning. 
Instead, when she has a good software, she does learn ... (by the way 
this is real life experience from teaching elder people to use MS 
Windows Vs. Mac OS X)

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Annaert Jan]

I back Roberto on this one. Despite my pleas, some of my colleagues have 
already shied away from using LyX because of these unnecessary hurdles, and 
that’s a shame in my opinion as LyX has so much more to offer than MS Word and 
similar. And if word can “hide” a zip in a docx-file, perhaps it is useful to 
hide it in a lyxx-file too?

Best regards,

Jan

Jan Annaert

From: "lyx-users@lists.lyx.org" <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org> on behalf of Roberto 
<foice.n...@gmail.com>
Date: Saturday 29 July 2017 12:44
To: "lyx-users@lists.lyx.org" <lyx-users@lists.lyx.org>
Subject: Re: all-inclusive file format

The current lyx format then does just right for you. That does not mean
that does right for everybody who uses the software. I hate MS Word too,
but I also do not like having folders plenty of pictures that I have to
carefully select when I pass the file to someone or share it in dropbox
and alike.



On 28/07/2017 18:10, Hobbs,Tom wrote:
This is precisely what I was saying.  Rather than have everything hidden
in a file as MS Word does, simply put the needed graphics files in a
folder shared with you lyx document.  No special file formats are
needed.  I agree, I hate MS Word.
On Jul 28, 2017, at 10:02 AM, Joe <jtw...@gmx.com<mailto:jtw...@gmx.com>
<mailto:jtw...@gmx.com><mailto:jtw...@gmx.com%3e>> wrote:


It would appear that on Jul 28, Hobbs,Tom did say:

Goodness gracious. Just put everything in a folder and send that,
which is
precisely what MS Word does without you knowing it.

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Charlie]

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 12:55:35 +0200
Roberto  wrote:

> Before answering think about your grandma having to do it ...

Would she be happy to use msword?

Charlie
-- 
Registered Linux User:- 329524
***

I had three chairs in my house; one for solitude, two for
friendship, three for societyHenry David Thoreau

***

Debian GNU/Linux - Magic indeed.

-

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Roberto]

Make is your friend.


I collaborate on dropbox with make-unfriendly computer-unsavvy people, 
make is not an option - and this is not such an uncommon case I guess! 
Instead, an _editable_ file format that __guarantees__ you have all is 
needed to compile the file is a haven for data integrity.


All the rest, I am sorry, is too geeky-pretensions-minded in my opinion. 
This kind of thinking in my opinion is ultimately the reason of the same 
attitude that causes some people never get over the learning curve of 
LaTeX. Do you want to collaborate with just computer skilled people? or 
you want to collaborate on writing just as effectively with just 
anybody? if you opt for the second, then LyX is a great solution, but 
the need to carry around figures is still a burden for some. Is this 
clear? (I said for some, maybe is not a problem for me, not a problem 
for you, but is a problem for the other half of the world! try to wear 
their shoes every now and then!)


So, if you wanted to use make, then for most users you can as well 
suggest to use LaTeX on vi :) is as much difficulty (infinity!)! Going 
by this token one always ends up saying "my current implementation can 
do it, just do 1), 2). 3) n) steps, but what effort does it take? Before 
answering think about your grandma having to do it ...

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Roberto]

The current lyx format then does just right for you. That does not mean 
that does right for everybody who uses the software. I hate MS Word too, 
but I also do not like having folders plenty of pictures that I have to 
carefully select when I pass the file to someone or share it in dropbox 
and alike.




On 28/07/2017 18:10, Hobbs,Tom wrote:
This is precisely what I was saying.  Rather than have everything hidden 
in a file as MS Word does, simply put the needed graphics files in a 
folder shared with you lyx document.  No special file formats are 
needed.  I agree, I hate MS Word.
On Jul 28, 2017, at 10:02 AM, Joe > wrote:



It would appear that on Jul 28, Hobbs,Tom did say:

Goodness gracious. Just put everything in a folder and send that, 
which is

precisely what MS Word does without you knowing it.

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Cool.

el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini 4

> On 29 Jul 2017, at 07:00, Richard Heck  wrote:
> 
>> On 07/28/2017 07:47 PM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
>> As an option, like "Compressed"?
> 
> Yes, precisely.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
>>> On 2017-07-27 18:48 , Richard Heck wrote:
>>> [...
>>> I'll think more about this. It's too late for 2.3, but it's something
>>> that could go into 2.4.
>>> 
>>> Richard
>> [...]
> 

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Richard Heck]

On 07/28/2017 07:47 PM, Dr Eberhard Lisse wrote:
> As an option, like "Compressed"?

Yes, precisely.

Richard


> On 2017-07-27 18:48 , Richard Heck wrote:
> [...
>> I'll think more about this. It's too late for 2.3, but it's something
>> that could go into 2.4.
>>
>> Richard
> [...]

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Dr Eberhard Lisse]

As an option, like "Compressed"?

el

On 2017-07-27 18:48 , Richard Heck wrote:
[...
> I'll think more about this. It's too late for 2.3, but it's something
> that could go into 2.4.
> 
> Richard
[...]

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Dr Eberhard Lisse]

Just for the record,

DOCX files are ZIP files in disguise.

But I really don't understand the issue. When done editing make a
tar.gz again and be done.

Make is your friend.

If you want to collaborate it's probably even better to do this with
GIT, which LyX supports, if I am not mistaken.



el

On 2017-07-27 16:52 , Roberto wrote:
> Hi Richard, thanks for bringing in your experience.
>
> If the tar.gz was something you can "mount" like a read-write DMG it
> would make sense to say that the archive does what I have in mind. As
> far as I know one can open DMG files and edit them and close them,
> effectively saving the content. The way it is now with tar.gz for me
> it is good only for archival purposes.
>
> Hopefully more people would enjoy having a "all-inclusive" file like
> this one.
> 
> Cheers,
> Roberto
> 
> 
> On 27/07/2017 16:40, Richard Heck wrote:
[...]
]>> There was some discussion of such a file structure, and I did a
>> bunch of work on it myself a few years ago. But there were also
>> disagreements about how exactly it should work, so it never went
>> anywhere. The archive we have now was a kind of compromise. But note
>> that it really is a pretty good compromise. It gives you, precisely,
>> a 'directory structure' that contains all the files needed for that
>> document. It's just that it's packed into a zip file or whatever.
>>
>> What it LyX was able to open such an archive directly? And what
>> if, when it had done so, it 'saved' the file directly to such an
>> archive? I can easily imagine the unpacking actually being done into
>> the temporary directory. This might not be very hard to achieve.
>>
>> Richard

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Hobbs,Tom]

This is precisely what I was saying.  Rather than have everything hidden in a 
file as MS Word does, simply put the needed graphics files in a folder shared 
with you lyx document.  No special file formats are needed.  I agree, I hate MS 
Word.
On Jul 28, 2017, at 10:02 AM, Joe > wrote:


It would appear that on Jul 28, Hobbs,Tom did say:

Goodness gracious. Just put everything in a folder and send that, which is
precisely what MS Word does without you knowing it.

It would appear that on Jul 28, Roberto did say:

On 28/07/2017 04:07, Hobbs,Tom wrote:
which is precisely what MS Word does without you knowing it.
and that is precisely what I do not want to know about and I am bothered by :)

Pardon me for jumping in here. I use LyX primarily because it is NOT like MS 
Word or
other WYSIWYG word processors. In which environment I can't keep track of what 
I'm
doing without some feature I don't want automatically messing with what I'm 
doing.

Well that and the way it keeps me from accidentally fat fingering extra spaces 
between
words and a few other such things so that I can concentrate on what I'm writing
instead of how it looks.

Please please please don't make LyX more like Word. Please!

--
Joe >


N. Thompson Hobbs
Professor,Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Department
of Ecosystem Science and Sustainability, and
Graduate Degree Program in Ecology
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO 80524
970-491-5738
www.nrel.colostate.edu/hobbs-home.html



For group mailings:
Use of this mail list is intended exclusively for
internal communication at Colorado State University.
Any unauthorized use is prohibited.

Re: all-inclusive file format

[David L. Johnson]

On 07/28/2017 12:02 PM, Joe wrote:

Please please please don't make LyX more like Word. Please!


Amen.

--

David L. Johnson
Department of Mathematics
Lehigh University

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Joe]

It would appear that on Jul 28, Hobbs,Tom did say:

> Goodness gracious. Just put everything in a folder and send that, which is
> precisely what MS Word does without you knowing it. 

It would appear that on Jul 28, Roberto did say:

> On 28/07/2017 04:07, Hobbs,Tom wrote:
> > which is precisely what MS Word does without you knowing it.
> and that is precisely what I do not want to know about and I am bothered by :)

Pardon me for jumping in here. I use LyX primarily because it is NOT like MS 
Word or
other WYSIWYG word processors. In which environment I can't keep track of what 
I'm
doing without some feature I don't want automatically messing with what I'm 
doing.

Well that and the way it keeps me from accidentally fat fingering extra spaces 
between
words and a few other such things so that I can concentrate on what I'm writing
instead of how it looks.

Please please please don't make LyX more like Word. Please!

-- 
Joe 

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Roberto]

On 28/07/2017 04:07, Hobbs,Tom wrote:

which is precisely what MS Word does without you knowing it.
and that is precisely what I do not want to know about and I am bothered 
by :)

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Hobbs,Tom]

Goodness gracious. Just put everything in a folder and send that, which is 
precisely what MS Word does without you knowing it. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jul 27, 2017, at 4:38 AM, Dr Eberhard Lisse  wrote:
> 
> Roberto,
> 
> I don't think that that can ever work, given LaTeX, other than major
> design change to LyX.
> 
> The one additional step of clicking on the archive after saving the
> attachment isn't that inconvenient, in my view.
> 
> el
> 
>> On 27/07/2017 08:52, Roberto wrote:
>> Hi Scott, thanks for your suggestion.  The archive does not really
>> do the job because you cannot edit it directly. My goal is to get
>> something like a MS Word document that contains all the pictures you
>> add in it and you can send it as a single file.
>> Cheers,
>> Roberto
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 26/07/2017 20:15, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
 On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 07:57:27PM +0200, roberto franceschini wrote:
 
 Hello, Is there a format of LyX document that contains the text as
 well as the figures it uses? Something like that can be sent by
 email and contain all that is needed to see the document, without
 the need to send along all the pictures from separate files.  
 
 Thanks in advance for your reply,
 
 Roberto
>>> 
>>> Does File > Export > LyX Archive do what you want?
>>> 
>>> Scott
> 

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Richard Heck]

On 07/27/2017 11:52 AM, Roberto wrote:
> Hi Richard, thanks for bringing in your experience.
>
> If the tar.gz was something you can "mount" like a read-write DMG it
> would make sense to say that the archive does what I have in mind. As
> far as I know one can open DMG files and edit them and close them,
> effectively saving the content. The way it is now with tar.gz for me
> it is good only for archival purposes.

In theory, this could probably be done using fusefs on Linux, but that's
not a general solution, and we don't automatically add images, say, to
the archive when you add a picture.

I'll think more about this. It's too late for 2.3, but it's something
that could go into 2.4.

Richard



>
> Hopefully more people would enjoy having a "all-inclusive" file like
> this one.
>
> Cheers,
> Roberto
>
>
> On 27/07/2017 16:40, Richard Heck wrote:
>> On 07/27/2017 09:07 AM, Roberto wrote:
>>> Let me explain better. The reason for asking for a feature like that is
>>> not that I cannot clic one more time to unpack a tar.gz :)
>>>
>>> The tar.gz is an export, not a "Save", that is the difference. Save
>>> means that you can edit it and keep saving every now and then.
>>>
>>> Furthermore the two things are difference because you can even remove
>>> the pictures from the disk and you still have them in the file.
>>>
>>> What I am looking for is a LyX file that does as a MS Word file does:
>>> one editable file contains all you need to work on the document.
>>>
>>> One could achieve this if the LyX file was actually a directory
>>> structure managed by LyX and when you save the file you save all the
>>> directory structure controlled by it. The user does not need to see
>>> all the complications about where the pictures are stored, just needs
>>> to see the pictures in the file.
>>
>> There was some discussion of such a file structure, and I did a bunch of
>> work on it myself a few years ago. But there were also disagreements
>> about how exactly it should work, so it never went anywhere. The archive
>> we have now was a kind of compromise. But note that it really is a
>> pretty good compromise. It gives you, precisely, a 'directory structure'
>> that contains all the files needed for that document. It's just that
>> it's packed into a zip file or whatever.
>>
>> What it LyX was able to open such an archive directly? And what if, when
>> it had done so, it 'saved' the file directly to such an archive? I can
>> easily imagine the unpacking actually being done into the temporary
>> directory. This might not be very hard to achieve.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>
>

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Roberto]

Hi Richard, thanks for bringing in your experience.

If the tar.gz was something you can "mount" like a read-write DMG it 
would make sense to say that the archive does what I have in mind. As 
far as I know one can open DMG files and edit them and close them, 
effectively saving the content. The way it is now with tar.gz for me it 
is good only for archival purposes.


Hopefully more people would enjoy having a "all-inclusive" file like 
this one.


Cheers,
Roberto


On 27/07/2017 16:40, Richard Heck wrote:

On 07/27/2017 09:07 AM, Roberto wrote:

Let me explain better. The reason for asking for a feature like that is
not that I cannot clic one more time to unpack a tar.gz :)

The tar.gz is an export, not a "Save", that is the difference. Save
means that you can edit it and keep saving every now and then.

Furthermore the two things are difference because you can even remove
the pictures from the disk and you still have them in the file.

What I am looking for is a LyX file that does as a MS Word file does:
one editable file contains all you need to work on the document.

One could achieve this if the LyX file was actually a directory
structure managed by LyX and when you save the file you save all the
directory structure controlled by it. The user does not need to see
all the complications about where the pictures are stored, just needs
to see the pictures in the file.


There was some discussion of such a file structure, and I did a bunch of
work on it myself a few years ago. But there were also disagreements
about how exactly it should work, so it never went anywhere. The archive
we have now was a kind of compromise. But note that it really is a
pretty good compromise. It gives you, precisely, a 'directory structure'
that contains all the files needed for that document. It's just that
it's packed into a zip file or whatever.

What it LyX was able to open such an archive directly? And what if, when
it had done so, it 'saved' the file directly to such an archive? I can
easily imagine the unpacking actually being done into the temporary
directory. This might not be very hard to achieve.

Richard

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Richard Heck]

On 07/27/2017 09:07 AM, Roberto wrote:
> Let me explain better. The reason for asking for a feature like that is
> not that I cannot clic one more time to unpack a tar.gz :)
>
> The tar.gz is an export, not a "Save", that is the difference. Save
> means that you can edit it and keep saving every now and then.
>
> Furthermore the two things are difference because you can even remove
> the pictures from the disk and you still have them in the file.
>
> What I am looking for is a LyX file that does as a MS Word file does:
> one editable file contains all you need to work on the document.
>
> One could achieve this if the LyX file was actually a directory
> structure managed by LyX and when you save the file you save all the
> directory structure controlled by it. The user does not need to see
> all the complications about where the pictures are stored, just needs
> to see the pictures in the file.

There was some discussion of such a file structure, and I did a bunch of
work on it myself a few years ago. But there were also disagreements
about how exactly it should work, so it never went anywhere. The archive
we have now was a kind of compromise. But note that it really is a
pretty good compromise. It gives you, precisely, a 'directory structure'
that contains all the files needed for that document. It's just that
it's packed into a zip file or whatever.

What it LyX was able to open such an archive directly? And what if, when
it had done so, it 'saved' the file directly to such an archive? I can
easily imagine the unpacking actually being done into the temporary
directory. This might not be very hard to achieve.

Richard

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Roberto]

Let me explain better. The reason for asking for a feature like that is
not that I cannot clic one more time to unpack a tar.gz :)

The tar.gz is an export, not a "Save", that is the difference. Save 
means that you can edit it and keep saving every now and then.


Furthermore the two things are difference because you can even remove 
the pictures from the disk and you still have them in the file.


What I am looking for is a LyX file that does as a MS Word file does: 
one editable file contains all you need to work on the document.


One could achieve this if the LyX file was actually a directory 
structure managed by LyX and when you save the file you save all the 
directory structure controlled by it. The user does not need to see all 
the complications about where the pictures are stored, just needs to see 
the pictures in the file.


I hope I have explained better what the use would be and how it would 
like for the user, so you know better why a tar.gz does not do the job.


Thanks,
Roberto


On 27/07/2017 13:39, Wolfgang Engelmann wrote:
Why not? You can open your lyx file after extracting the arch, and it 
contains all you need such as the figures, bib file and style file, work 
on it, arch it again and send it as one file to your colleague


Wolfgang


Am 27.07.2017 um 09:52 schrieb Roberto:

Hi Scott, thanks for your suggestion.
 The archive does not really do the job because you cannot edit it 
directly. My goal is to get something like a MS Word document that 
contains all the pictures you add in it and you can send it as a 
single file.

Cheers,
Roberto



On 26/07/2017 20:15, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 07:57:27PM +0200, roberto franceschini wrote:

Hello,
  Is there a format of LyX document that contains the text as well 
as the
figures it uses? Something like that can be sent by email and 
contain all
that is needed to see the document, without the need to send along 
all the

pictures from separate files.
Thanks in advance for your reply,
Roberto


Does File > Export > LyX Archive do what you want?

Scott

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Wolfgang Engelmann]

Why not? You can open your lyx file after extracting the arch, and it 
contains all you need such as the figures, bib file and style file, work 
on it, arch it again and send it as one file to your colleague


Wolfgang


Am 27.07.2017 um 09:52 schrieb Roberto:

Hi Scott, thanks for your suggestion.
 The archive does not really do the job because you cannot edit it 
directly. My goal is to get something like a MS Word document that 
contains all the pictures you add in it and you can send it as a 
single file.

Cheers,
Roberto



On 26/07/2017 20:15, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 07:57:27PM +0200, roberto franceschini wrote:

Hello,
  Is there a format of LyX document that contains the text as well 
as the
figures it uses? Something like that can be sent by email and 
contain all
that is needed to see the document, without the need to send along 
all the

pictures from separate files.
Thanks in advance for your reply,
Roberto


Does File > Export > LyX Archive do what you want?

Scott

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Dr Eberhard Lisse]

Roberto,

I don't think that that can ever work, given LaTeX, other than major
design change to LyX.

The one additional step of clicking on the archive after saving the
attachment isn't that inconvenient, in my view.

el

On 27/07/2017 08:52, Roberto wrote:
> Hi Scott, thanks for your suggestion.  The archive does not really
> do the job because you cannot edit it directly. My goal is to get
> something like a MS Word document that contains all the pictures you
> add in it and you can send it as a single file.
> Cheers,
> Roberto
> 
> 
> 
> On 26/07/2017 20:15, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 07:57:27PM +0200, roberto franceschini wrote:
>>
>>> Hello, Is there a format of LyX document that contains the text as
>>> well as the figures it uses? Something like that can be sent by
>>> email and contain all that is needed to see the document, without
>>> the need to send along all the pictures from separate files.  
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for your reply,
>>>
>>> Roberto
>>
>> Does File > Export > LyX Archive do what you want?
>>
>> Scott

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Roberto]

Hi Scott, thanks for your suggestion.
 The archive does not really do the job because you cannot edit it 
directly. My goal is to get something like a MS Word document that 
contains all the pictures you add in it and you can send it as a single 
file.

Cheers,
Roberto



On 26/07/2017 20:15, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 07:57:27PM +0200, roberto franceschini wrote:

Hello,
  Is there a format of LyX document that contains the text as well as the
figures it uses? Something like that can be sent by email and contain all
that is needed to see the document, without the need to send along all the
pictures from separate files.
Thanks in advance for your reply,
Roberto


Does File > Export > LyX Archive do what you want?

Scott

Re: all-inclusive file format

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 07:57:27PM +0200, roberto franceschini wrote:
> Hello,
>  Is there a format of LyX document that contains the text as well as the
> figures it uses? Something like that can be sent by email and contain all
> that is needed to see the document, without the need to send along all the
> pictures from separate files.
> Thanks in advance for your reply,
> Roberto

Does File > Export > LyX Archive do what you want?

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature