On 4/7/24 08:39, Lorenzo Bertini wrote:
Just out of curiosity I've tried converting a LyX document to YAML and
XML to see how they would look.
I spent some time once working on an XML file format, thinking I could
use some of the machinery developed for XHTML output, which is now even
more
Dear devs,
thanks to everyone who chimed in. I didn't understand José's reply
until I looked at the lexers we use and found only one. I just didn't
occur to me that most files LyX uses are in this same format,
documents and configurations alike. This is a considerable advantage
of LyX's own
On Thu, 2024-03-28 at 13:00 +0100, Thibaut Cuvelier wrote:
> All of these formats are rather well supported and far from shiny new
> things (I think all of them have at least a decade of existence).
>
> Regarding validation: XML Schema has many offsprings, such as JSON
> Schema
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 12:49:14PM +0100, Lorenzo Bertini wrote:
> I am proposing this because I've had people tell me layouts
> are "advanced", and one of the roadblocks to using LyX. Having easy
> tools to edit them would help.
Another thing to consider is how to support home-written modules
On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 12:40:10PM +0100, Lorenzo Bertini wrote:
> - TOML:
> . pros: very easy to read and write, even for humans
> . cons: not widespread, distant from .layout
> - YAML:
> . pros: very easy to read and write, very close to .layout
> . cons: indentation is prone to syntax
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 at 12:41, Lorenzo Bertini
wrote:
> Il giorno gio 28 mar 2024 alle ore 11:40 José Matos
> ha scritto:
> >
> > On Wed, 2024-03-27 at 11:02 -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > > Cool idea, Lorenzo! There have been some discussions in the past on
> > > using standard formats, even
PS.
Reading JMarc comment under https://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/13035 made
me think. I don't want to come off as suffering from "shiny new thing
syndrome". I am proposing this because I've had people tell me layouts
are "advanced", and one of the roadblocks to using LyX. Having easy
tools to edit
Il giorno gio 28 mar 2024 alle ore 11:40 José Matos
ha scritto:
>
> On Wed, 2024-03-27 at 11:02 -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > Cool idea, Lorenzo! There have been some discussions in the past on
> > using standard formats, even for the .lyx file itself. I can see the
> > advantages of that but
On Wed, 2024-03-27 at 11:02 -0400, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> Cool idea, Lorenzo! There have been some discussions in the past on
> using standard formats, even for the .lyx file itself. I can see the
> advantages of that but I don't know what the cost of converting to
> them
> is.
>
> Scott
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 09:59:04AM +0100, Lorenzo Bertini wrote:
> Dear devs,
> I don't know if this has been discussed before. Lyx uses it's own
> format .layout (or .module), with it's own parser. However, the same
> information can be easily saved stored in another format. I asked a
> chatbot
Dear devs,
I don't know if this has been discussed before. Lyx uses it's own
format .layout (or .module), with it's own parser. However, the same
information can be easily saved stored in another format. I asked a
chatbot to convert "amsbook.layout" to an hypothetical "amsbook.yaml"
file:
format:
11 matches
Mail list logo
