Uwe,
great that you could fix the numbering!
I have tested your templates and I found the following issues (Mac, LyX
2.0.0):
svmono_book.lyx:
1) Minor -- Master document has not been set. I propose to do so for
each include file so that "View master document" and "Update master
document" can be used from each include file immediately. After the
first run LyX knows the master document.
2) Minor -- chapter.lyx, equation eq:10: An equation array style has
been used improperly. The whole equation is in the left column, rather
than spread out over all 3 columns
3) Very Minor -- chapter.lyx, equation eq:10, second line: Okay, this
is quite pedantic and not really a LyX problem:
\vec{a}\cdot\vec{b}=\vec{c} should be replaced by
\vec{a}\cdot\vec{b}=c as the scalar product of two vectors is a scalar
rather than a vector. Having said this, this small error is actually due
to Springer, and I am not sure whether we want to correct it.
4) Medium -- chapter.lyx: References to LaTeX should be replaced by
references to LyX, e.g, "Furtheron please use the LaTeX automatism for
all your cross-references and citations." There are several instances
of such references.
5) Major -- chapter.lyx, Section 1.3.1.1: Neither "Proof" Style nor
"Proof(smartQED)" Style works. "Proof(QED)" does not work either.
6) Medium -- appendix.lyx: The section A.1 is too short to illustrate
the Style "Running Section". The same problem arises in section 1 of
chapter.lyx
7) Minor -- appendix, eqution eq:A01: Same as issues 2) and 3).
8) Medium -- Glossary: No documentation of how the style "Extrachap"
(or the style "extrachap") is to be used. These styles are non-obvious
variants of "Chapter*". Documentation is included in my testfile
"SVmono_testfile.lyx".
9) Medium -- foreword.lyx: Optional argument has not been explained
10) Major -- solution.lyx: The solution style does not work correctly.
It should be numbered (without label "solution") where the numbers are
the corresponding problem numbers. The corresponding problems are given
via references in the optional arguments.
svjour3.lyx:
11) The optional arguments of problem and solution are not supported
correctly.
General:
12) I think you should take credit for your improvements in the header
of the inc and layout files.
For some reason, the three proof environments do not work any more nor
do the solution environments. They did work with my old layout files.
I cannot pinpoint the issues but the following may help to find the bugs:
1) Make in my layout files the following changes:
1a) insert the InTitle flag in my "Title running" style
1b) uncomment the line "RequiredArgs 1" in my "Sol" style.
2) in solution.lyx correct the two optional arguments so that they
contain the reference label of the corresponding problems ("prob:prob1"
and "prob:prob2" instead of "probl" and "prob2").
Then your svmono_book.lyx template compiles with my layouts and produce
the correct output.
Specific comments:
1) You have replaced the theorem type environments by the standard
theorem include file, in which
theorem-like environments are defined via \newtheorem.
No, I have not done this because this won't compile and the springer
classes define their own theorem environments.
Where do you see that I have done this? I also wrote you about my
solution in the last mail. So I'm a bit confused now.
Sorry, this was my mistake. I mixed up theorem.inc and
theorem-without-preamble.inc
2) Springer provides two different solution environments, "sol" and
"solution", in their classes
smono.cls and svmult.cls.
I will add "solution" when I review the new layout and include for
svmult. Currently, these files are only reviewed for svmono and svjour.
("sol" is also possible for svmono (it compiles) but the output
consists of question marks and "sol" is not used in the offical
template, only "solution".)
The environment "sol" appears to be preferred and generates a counter
(without any additional label) while the environment "solution"
provides the label "Solution"
together with a counter. Consequently, the styles "Sol" and
"Solution_(theorem-like)"
But your LaTeX code you created via the layout file was for both
environments the same. That's why I removed one of them. It was a bug
in your layout.
It was done on purpose but admittedly not very elegant. Observe that I
redefine some environments in some layout files so that this "double-up"
does not survive in any layout. Anyway, I am not at all opposed to
change this implementation detail. Perhapsit would be best to
explicitly define the solution and problem environments in each layout
file separately?
What environment you think is missing in the new template files? (I
have not listed every possible theorem environment because this is not
necessary - the user will get the idea from the 3 examples I have in
the files.)
I think that the environments are sufficient. But most users would need
some information about extrachap and Extrachap.
