Andre Poenitz wrote:
> I'd actually prefer ô since this is non-ambiguous.
>
> Writing 8 bit in some encoding make life only simpler if you are reading
> the .lyx with the naked eye if you happen to use the correct enconding.
> And that should happen only in vary rare circumstances.
It's true that even if, say ISO-8859-8, is written at the beginning of the file,
it
doesn't help us get the correct encoding automatically in a simple text editor.
However, on the other hand, &xxxx; is useful and meaningful only for Latin-1 letters
and
simple Greek letters (with accents). To simply analysis, take a 8 bit non-Latin-1
encoding, say iso8859-8 for Hebrew (because that's the lastest success in LyX) as
example.
You see, in this encoding (as well as others, of course), if we have to use &xxx;
for non-Ascii characters, we could only write numeric forms because there's no entities
for these (non-Latin1 characters). For example, take the letter "aleph", its code is
\xE0 in ISO-8859-8 (correct me if I'm wrong), and thus it has to be written as à
or
à In this case, it's as ambiguous as using the binary value and it's not hard to
imagine that this isn't readable either to naked eyes. The same problem will occur if
Unicode (UTF-8) is used in the future. That's why it's absolutely necessary to precise
the encoding at the very beginning of the file.
But of course, we could have a compromise: for well-known entities like Á
ß etc, &xxxx; format is used. Otherwise, binary code is used. But the final
decision is up to you because for normal users, it's very rare they have to read lyx
file in a text editor :)
> The current format is not perfect (You'll notice this once you try to
> write a parser for it ;-)). If we switch to XML(...ish) we get a lot of
> cake for free: Everybody who writes a XML-to-something converter
> automatically writes a LYX-to-thesamething converter. Currently only LyX itself can
> read .lyx, and that is not tolerable in a setting where
> interoperability matters.
I see. If we expect LyX-2-something converter to be written by others based on
Xml-2-something, maybe we should use stricter Xml structure/syntax, no?
> Of course, this is the 'Correct Way'. However, LyX's internal structure does exactly
> look like what I 'translated'. The section's title is marked as
> 'Section', the content as 'Standard'.
> The 'Correct Way' would probably be to change the internals, too.
> But let's do this slowly ;-)
I just remember that in latex, it's also written \section, right? Well, maybe we
could change nothing at all. But we could invent another tag to englobe the whole
section (well, if it's possible).
Seak
