On 2009-05-10, Alex Fernandez wrote:
> Welcome back, Christian,
> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Christian Ridderström wrote:
>> I'm not sure if the above is what eventually got decided, but if so
>> one way to "officially" recognise eLyXer is to let Alex create a web
>> page about inside www.ly
On Sun, 10 May 2009, Alex Fernandez wrote:
Welcome back, Christian,
It's nice to be back! (Actually, it's nice to be able to use pine, and to
be able to access the lists as news groups :-)
Apologies in advance for what became a rather long post. There are no
technical insights regarding th
Welcome back, Christian,
On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:56 PM, Christian Ridderström
wrote:
> I'm not sure if the above is what eventually got decided, but if so one way
> to "officially" recognise eLyXer is to let Alex create a web page about
> inside www.lyx.org. Actually, I think we could probably
On Sat, 2 May 2009, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
What we should do:
* recognize eLyXer as a HTML converter (already done, AFAICS)
* communicate whether both in eLyXer or LyX, something could be improved to
make their cooperation easier
What we could do (given that Alex supports this idea):
* pro
On Saturday 02 May 2009 16:19:46 rgheck wrote:
> Yes, true.
>
> For the linguistically inclined, this is actually a nice example of how
> possessives, like "his", can mean a lot of different things. At least in
> English, and I'd assume in other languages, too.
The same happens to me about "my" cl
Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Alex Fernandez:
> Hi again,
>
> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Kornel Benko wrote:
> > I meant something like: I (elyxer) understand lyx-formats up to 329.
> > Our actual format in trunk is 354, while lyx 1.6.3 writes format 345.
> >
> > So it _is_ important to know
Hi again,
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Kornel Benko wrote:
> I meant something like: I (elyxer) understand lyx-formats up to 329.
> Our actual format in trunk is 354, while lyx 1.6.3 writes format 345.
>
> So it _is_ important to know, what elyxer supports.
Seen this way it is. What I meant w
Richard Heck wrote:
> I'm not proposing we list each one separately, but find some way to detect
> them all and then configure things appropriately.
i dont understand this proposal. we detect them all. then what?
pavel
Alex Fernandez wrote:
As to the relicensing, that is fine with me. Just let me know when you need it.
Just do it at your leisure, though maybe by the end of the month would
be good. It won't become an issue for a little while still.
rh
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Pavel Sanda wrote:
As said, I do not understand why eLyXer should be separated from that
paradigma.
i tried to explain - difference in technology and target too (mainly based
what can (not) be read from latex output).
Yes, bu
Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Alex Fernandez:
> Hi Kornel,
>
> On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Kornel Benko wrote:
> > Yes, we should. It is yet not possible for autoconfigure to determine
> > which format elyxer supports.
> >
> > Maybe some elyxer-parameter, like --print-format. Alex?
>
> No nee
Hi Kornel,
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Kornel Benko wrote:
> Yes, we should. It is yet not possible for autoconfigure to determine which
> format elyxer supports.
>
> Maybe some elyxer-parameter, like --print-format. Alex?
No need to. eLyXer, being in the more-or-less-unique position of
cons
Hi Richard,
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 5:27 PM, rgheck wrote:
> And then, of course, there's the fact that you've already done so much of
> the hard work. My intention, if it's OK with you, is pretty much to borrow
> from what you've already done, at least as far as the format of the HTML
> output is
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > >As said, I do not understand why eLyXer should be separated from that
> > > paradigma.
> >
> > i tried to explain - difference in technology and target too (mainly based
> > what can (not) be read from latex output).
>
> Yes, but I'm not convince
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> >As said, I do not understand why eLyXer should be separated from that
> > paradigma.
>
> i tried to explain - difference in technology and target too (mainly based
> what can (not) be read from latex output).
Yes, but I'm not convinced by this at all. tex4ht is at least as fa
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> > Thanks for changing this. But shouldn't we now give the html format the
> > name "HTML (tex4ht)" to tell the users what program they are using, like we
> > do for PDF?
>
> It's not necessarily tex4ht. It can also be latex2html or hevea.
yes, i use
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Thanks for changing this. But shouldn't we now give the html format the
> name "HTML (tex4ht)" to tell the users what program they are using, like we
> do for PDF?
It's not necessarily tex4ht. It can also be latex2html or hevea. As said, I do
not understand why eLyXer should be
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> i understand the problem. my problem is - are you really sure running
> src/elyxer.py is the same as running ./elyxer?
No, both are different but Alex will re-add the file extension to the
latter and rename the one in src/ now.
> elyxhtml is not to be seen anywhere in the m
> i understand the problem. my problem is - are you really sure running
> src/elyxer.py is the same as running ./elyxer?
No, both are different but Alex will re-add the file extension to the latter and rename the one in
src/ now.
> elyxhtml is not to be seen anywhere in the menu, but as i said
Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
> Kornel Benko wrote:
> > > Still, LyX's autoconfigure should work with any version of a program,
> > > if possible.
> >
> > Yes, we should. It is yet not possible for autoconfigure to determine
> > which format elyxer supports.
>
> Only eLyXer kno
Alex Fernandez wrote:
Said in this way it may look a bit harsh. The reality is that, even
though it would be great, I don't think the project of producing
native HTML output is viable. Not in a "haha you will never catch me"
way, but rather in a "it will get _very_ boring before it is useful"
fas
Kornel Benko wrote:
> > Still, LyX's autoconfigure should work with any version of a program, if
> > possible.
>
> Yes, we should. It is yet not possible for autoconfigure to determine which
> format elyxer supports.
Only eLyXer knows. And it should issue lyx2lyx in order to get that specific
for
Pavel Sanda wrote:
Alex Fernandez wrote:
and only after
his exams were finished. Not a very solid promise, if I have to judge
by my own University years :P
i warn you, Richard is some day beyond _his_ exams :)
Yes, true.
For the linguistically inclined, this is actually a nice ex
Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
> Kornel Benko wrote:
> > > > Well, this is certainly the case for many other alternative programs
> > > > as well.
> > >
> > > my feeling was that this is somewhat on the level of pdf/1/2/3 though.
>
> I'd rather see it on the level of latex2html/
Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
> Kornel Benko wrote:
> > I learned today, tha elyxer supports lyx1.6. It was not soo difficult to
> > change my preferences to reflect this upgrade.
> >
> > And we do not change the format too often for the public.
>
> Still, LyX's autoconfigure s
Kornel Benko wrote:
> > > Well, this is certainly the case for many other alternative programs as
> > > well.
> >
> > my feeling was that this is somewhat on the level of pdf/1/2/3 though.
I'd rather see it on the level of latex2html/tex4ht.
pdf1/2/3 involves specific file conversion handling and
Kornel Benko wrote:
> I learned today, tha elyxer supports lyx1.6. It was not soo difficult to
> change my preferences to reflect this upgrade.
>
> And we do not change the format too often for the public.
Still, LyX's autoconfigure should work with any version of a program, if
possible.
It's no
Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller:
> Kornel Benko wrote:
> > There were no need for elyxer to be aware of lyx2lyx. I for one am using
> > it this way since some weeks.
>
> However, this would mean that the eLyXer format needed to be frozen.
I learned today, tha elyxer supports lyx1
Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
> Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> > Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > > it makes sense to have both export possibilities - the
> > > standard via-latex-tools preserves much better the math, structure with
> > > contents etc, on the other way lyxer has more attractive vi
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > it makes sense to have both export possibilities - the
> > standard via-latex-tools preserves much better the math, structure with
> > contents etc, on the other way lyxer has more attractive visual appearance.
> > so for different documents you wo
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> it makes sense to have both export possibilities - the
> standard via-latex-tools preserves much better the math, structure with
> contents etc, on the other way lyxer has more attractive visual appearance.
> so for different documents you would use different output.
Well, thi
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> * checkViewer should go to checkFormatsEntries method, not
> checkConvertersEntries().
but i wanted this to be function to be called only if checkProg('eLyXer
converter'... proceed. (it shouldn't be displayed when user have no
interest in lyxer). so the position is co
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > * recognize eLyXer as a HTML converter (already done, AFAICS)
>
> do you agree to backport this into branch?
principally yes, but the change has some flaws:
* checkViewer should go to checkFormatsEntries method, not
checkConvertersEntries().
* the program call syntax ques
Kornel Benko wrote:
> There were no need for elyxer to be aware of lyx2lyx. I for one am using it
> this way since some weeks.
However, this would mean that the eLyXer format needed to be frozen.
Jürgen
Am Samstag 02 Mai 2009 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
> Kornel Benko wrote:
> > > The problem is that I have to give it a file extension to make Python
> > > recognize it. When I do this also the problem I had with missing
> > > includes disappears.
> >
> > You mean, calling python is not sufficient?
>
> it
Alex Fernandez wrote:
> and only after
> his exams were finished. Not a very solid promise, if I have to judge
> by my own University years :P
i warn you, Richard is some day beyond _his_ exams :)
pavel
Hi Richard,
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 1:19 AM, rgheck wrote:
>> Have you considered that Alex might help you with your HTML project since
>> he knows HTML as well as you and might have more LyX-HTML experience due to
>> his eLyXer.
>>
> Yes. I suggested we should work together. He refused.
Said in
Kornel Benko wrote:
> > The problem is that I have to give it a file extension to make Python
> > recognize it. When I do this also the problem I had with missing includes
> > disappears.
>
> You mean, calling python is not sufficient?
it is, but the question was different - is it possible to ru
Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> What we should do:
>
> * recognize eLyXer as a HTML converter (already done, AFAICS)
do you agree to backport this into branch?
pavel
Alex Fernandez wrote:
> Good to know. I thought it was cute to remove the extension but
> apparently this is causing problems. I will change this so that the
> main executable file is "elyxer.py", and the main source code file is
> e.g. "main.py".
as i see it:
1. for smooth working we need elyxer.
Pavel Sanda wrote:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg150476.html
>
> "In any case, it might be a good idea to integrate it a bit more in one way
> or the other"
>
> "in any case ..." i read as "if it is included or not"
Yes, this is what I meant.
Let me a bit more clear:
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
rgheck schrieb:
I think that's up to JMarc, or Lars, or someone. What I don't see is
why it's useful or important to integrate development of elyxer into
LyX. I don't have a problem including the "binary" (i.e., elyxer
executable) in the distribution.
Have you considered th
Hi Uwe,
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:30 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> The problem is that I have to give it a file extension to make Python
> recognize it. When I do this also the problem I had with missing includes
> disappears.
Good to know. I thought it was cute to remove the extension but
apparently th
rgheck schrieb:
I think that's up to JMarc, or Lars, or someone. What I don't see is why
it's useful or important to integrate development of elyxer into LyX. I
don't have a problem including the "binary" (i.e., elyxer executable) in
the distribution.
Have you considered that Alex might help
Am Freitag 01 Mai 2009 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:
> the nitpicking part for Uwe:
> >> There is no binary for Windows and Mac, while the Python file works on
> >> all platforms.
> >
> > there is no binary for linux either. just look into the directory -
> > "elyxer" is normal python script and the docu
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
rgheck schrieb:
My problem with the discussion in this thread is that it focuses on
the current state of eLyXer. But why is that important? eLyXer is
not yet ready for branch of course, but lets integrate it in trunk
and make it better. Before we release LyX 2.0 we can decide
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> The problem is that I have to give it a file extension to make Python
> recognize it. When I do this also the problem I had with missing includes
> disappears.
i understand the problem. my problem is - are you really sure running
src/elyxer.py is the same as running ./elyxer?
the nitpicking part for Uwe:
>> There is no binary for Windows and Mac, while the Python file works on all
>> platforms.
>
> there is no binary for linux either. just look into the directory - "elyxer"
> is normal python script and the documentation says to use this script.
The problem is that I
rgheck schrieb:
My problem with the discussion in this thread is that it focuses on
the current state of eLyXer. But why is that important? eLyXer is not
yet ready for branch of course, but lets integrate it in trunk and
make it better. Before we release LyX 2.0 we can decide if eLyXer is
rea
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>> No it was not. What you did was detecting eLyXer but this is not
necessary
>> when it is integrated.
>
> which we haven't agreed upon
Am I blind?:
http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg150471.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg150473
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> >> No it was not. What you did was detecting eLyXer but this is not
> necessary
> >> when it is integrated.
> >
> > which we haven't agreed upon
anyway lets turn this into something more constructive -
could the people involved write clearly their standpoint now,
when i guess
>> No it was not. What you did was detecting eLyXer but this is not necessary
>> when it is integrated.
>
> which we haven't agreed upon
Am I blind?:
http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg150471.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org/msg150473.html
http://www.ma
> so we have two haters today :)
> but please note that you started it by reverting my code without a single
> question. it drives me crazy to ...
It is a pretty Friday morning and I suddenly feel like checking what
is going on with LyX, and I see this email. I am glad that the LyX
traditions and
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> >> 4. we need two HTML output formats to distinguich between tex4ht and
> eLyXer
> >> -> I have implemented this now as "html2"
> >
> > this was already done with my previous code and the ui was not poluted
> > by html2 entry when somebody didn't have elyxer installed.
>
> No it
Alex Fernandez schrieb:
Essentially what you are proposing is a fork of eLyXer, not an
integration.
Why would that be a fork? A fork is in my opinion when I create a new program while the other one
will be developed independently. But what I proposed is to have only only program, only to chan
>> 4. we need two HTML output formats to distinguich between tex4ht and eLyXer
>> -> I have implemented this now as "html2"
>
> this was already done with my previous code and the ui was not poluted
> by html2 entry when somebody didn't have elyxer installed.
No it was not. What you did was detec
Hi Uwe,
On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 4:26 AM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> As most of us agreed that eLyXer should be integrated, the following needs
> to be done:
>
> 1. the license of eLyXer need to be uniform with LyX's license (GPL v2 not
> v3)
> 2. eLyXer should get a more explicit name like lyx2html
> 3. w
Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> As most of us agreed that eLyXer should be integrated
i can't believe my eyes :) we must read some different lyx-devel list. there
was _no_ such agreement, on contrary some people settled, that unless html
output is done in a more complete way we shouldn't ship it together with
As most of us agreed that eLyXer should be integrated, the following needs to
be done:
1. the license of eLyXer need to be uniform with LyX's license (GPL v2 not v3)
2. eLyXer should get a more explicit name like lyx2html
3. we need to find a suitable location, under
lib/scripts/lyx2html
o
59 matches
Mail list logo
