> Thanks for sending the license statement. I've added you to the credits.
Excellent.
> Actually, the first issue is that, especially since 2.0 will (hopefully)
> let the user choose conversion paths, etc, we can go ahead and install
> both the xhtml->blog and html->blog converters. This is particularly
> important in 2.0, it seems to me, since otherwise people who happen to
> have had elyxer installed for use with 1.6.x would not then see that
> they have a new option in 2.0.x.
When can we reasonably expect to see this "user chooses his own conversion
paths" code? Which contributors are currently working on it? Is there a branch
somewhere that at least has the GUI so we can see what it looks like?
You do have a valid point about making sure eLyXer users know there's a new kid
on the block (LyXHTML) in 2.0. I think LyX 2.0 makes that pretty obvious with
it's big, beautiful preview button that lists LyXHTML as one of its few
options. Even so, the LyxBlogger xterm window already tells the user which file
format is being used. It would be trivial yet informative to expand that
message to:
'''Based on your input file, you are using the eLyXer format.
LyXBlogger also supports LyX 2.0's internal LyXHTML format.
For more information, see the user's guide at ...'''
and its converse:
'''Based on your input file, you are using the LyXHTML format.
LyXBlogger also supports the eLyXer format.
For more information, see the user's guide at ...'''
> Or we could, except that [snip]
Or we could what? Is there a phrase missing here?
> [snip]the check for elyxer does NOT guarantee that lyxblogger will only
> see output from elyxer. This could lead to export failures and confused users.
To keep latex2html and other converters from being used, LyXBlogger could
simply parse the html header, looking for the eLyXer style sheet, which always
points to
http://www.nongnu.org/elyxer/lyx.css
And drop an error if it's not found.
'''ERROR: Unsupported Input Type
Supported inputs are eLyXer and LyXHTML
Your input format appears to be neither of these.
Proceed anyway? Y (N)'''
That seems quite reasonable. Easy to implement, and gives immediate feedback.
In fact, I like it so much I'm putting it on my to do list now.
> That makes me wonder whether lyxblogger might not operate a different
> way, namely, as a LyX-->Blog converter that, if it is given a LyX file
> as input, calls elyxer itself. Then we COULD do the check for elyxer
> before registering it as a LyX-->Blog converter and all would go
> according to plan.
Ah, but this would ideed bypass the beauty of the LyX chained converters, and
add complexity to the front end of LyxBlogger. LyxBlogger would have to deal
with three input types: xhtml, html, and .lyx. Which brings another question to
mind: Can the LyX -> LyXHTML converter be called from command line? If it can,
then both converters could theoretically be LyX -> blog. I'm not sure I'm
interested in pursuing that route, but it's something to think about.
CONCLUSION
All said, I still support the idea of only installing one converter by default,
as in the latest patch I provided (LyxBlogger_Formats_Patch3.diff). With the
addition of the FORMAT messages and ERROR checking I introduced above, it keeps
the user informed of his/her options, prevents abuse by TtH, Hevea, and others,
and maintains elegantly uncluttered export menus. And it would be functional
_now_, without waiting for the code from the converter-path-chooser which may
or may not be ready for 2.0.
-Jack
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jack Desert -- Writer, Entrepeneur
Author and Spokesman: www.LetsEATalready.com
Software Developer: http://GrooveTask.org
Email: jackdesert...@gmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
