On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 07:23, Bruce Sass wrote: > On Thu, 27 Dec 2002, Darren Freeman wrote: > > > > So I would say this: apart from obvious shortening of bloated symbols, > > > > leave them readable (and compatible!). As long as gzipping becomes the > > > > standard, that's a good thing since it's a tiny penalty for a large > > > > gain. > > > > > > Frankly, I consider it a hack. > > ya, also, "tiny" and "large" are relative > > I think the gain would depend on the situation; negative in the case > of nothing but small live files, huge for archives of large files. > Is one group more important than the other?
No. But how many "small" LyX files have you seen lately? =) > > Why? Are we concerned with the size of a gzipped file or the original?? > > > > What is the goal? > > > > The representation of the user's data is the goal, as I see it. > Making compressed the default is raising the bar wrt systems LyX is > usable with, for no clear benefit. An old slow box can probably get a > new HD, cheap, but it is a lot tougher to cope with running out of CPU > cycles, memory, or patience... I never said make it the *only* choice, just the default. Those that have slow boxes will most probably be clever enough to deselect a checkbox (or change the extension). > I would love to see LyX transparently handle *.lyx.{gz,bz2,zip,?} or > *.ly{g,b,z,?} (respectively), but it should be up to the user to > determine what the default behaviour will be. Of course. > Maybe system and user preference options like `default compression > method', `enable automatic (re)compression', `compressed file suffix > style (force it or not)', ..., along with a `save as compressed' menu > item or [none, gzip, bzip, zip, ?], etc. radio buttons in a `save > file' dialog, eh. Too many options bamboozle newbies. I know ;) Most people won't have an issue with compressing new files, I expect. Many won't even know the difference. > - Bruce Have fun, Darren