Jean-Marc Lasgouttes ha scritto:
Basically, the main stated plan for the 1.6 branch is switching our
file format to some correctly formed xml. There is already some
proof-of-concept code to do that in a branch. This will force us to
have a more unified way to access the parameters, and I was argu
Bo Peng ha scritto:
It would be discussed after 1.5.0 but ODF may be steered too much to
WYSIWYG (single character and paragraph styles etc) to be used by
Isn't LyX already moving towards supporting custom paragraph styles ?
I saw a Paragraph Settings dialog (and actually I'm a little bit concer
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 11:36:52AM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >>"Tommaso" == Tommaso Cucinotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >Tommaso> What about the OO OpenDocument xml format ? Would it be too
> >Tommaso> complex for LyX ?
> >
> >The lyx document form
What about the OO OpenDocument xml format ? Would it
be too complex for LyX ?
It would be discussed after 1.5.0 but ODF may be steered too much to
WYSIWYG (single character and paragraph styles etc) to be used by
lyx/latex. However, being able to embed figures, and having an
internal exporter to
On Wednesday 11 July 2007 10:30:47 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Tommaso> Plus, what about maths ? Would they be represented as smth.
> Tommaso> like MathML instead of plain LaTeX that you have now ?
>
> I think there are problems related to that (latex (and lyx) LyX is
> more on the presentational
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Tommaso" == Tommaso Cucinotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tommaso> What about the OO OpenDocument xml format ? Would it be too
Tommaso> complex for LyX ?
The lyx document format is supposed to reflect what LyX is able to
handle. I am not sure ODF is usable, since
> "Tommaso" == Tommaso Cucinotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tommaso> What about the OO OpenDocument xml format ? Would it be too
Tommaso> complex for LyX ?
The lyx document format is supposed to reflect what LyX is able to
handle. I am not sure ODF is usable, since we have no plan to
implem
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes ha scritto:
Basically, the main stated plan for the 1.6 branch is switching our
file format to some correctly formed xml. There is already some
proof-of-concept code to do that in a branch. This will force us to
What about the OO OpenDocument xml format ? Would it
be too
> "Tommaso" == Tommaso Cucinotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tommaso> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes ha scritto:
>> Except if this serialization can be merged with the writing of the
>> xml parameters once we switch to that. In this case, the thing
>> would make more sense (and allow to define bindings
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes ha scritto:
Except if this serialization can be merged with the writing of the xml
parameters once we switch to that. In this case, the thing would make
more sense (and allow to define bindings to tune individual
parameters).
Is it possible to have brief description of wh
On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 06:39:30PM +0200, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >>"Tommaso" == Tommaso Cucinotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >Tommaso> While this could be useful to allow activation of the
> >Tommaso> functionality from the action buffer or a script, why
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> We don't need XML to sanitize a the format of the passed
Abdelrazak> string, we could do that now using
Abdelrazak> requests.
I mean that we will do XML in any case, and this could be merged with
the serialization s
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> What I personally dislike (I should probably say "hate"
Abdelrazak> ;-)) and what I intent to change in 1.6 is the
Abdelrazak> serialization used in order to retrieve information from
Abdelraza
> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> What I personally dislike (I should probably say "hate"
Abdelrazak> ;-)) and what I intent to change in 1.6 is the
Abdelrazak> serialization used in order to retrieve information from
Abdelrazak> the core (the initPara
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Tommaso" == Tommaso Cucinotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tommaso> While this could be useful to allow activation of the
Tommaso> functionality from the action buffer or a script, why don't
Tommaso> just call the method, instead, from the GUI classes ?
This was par
> "Tommaso" == Tommaso Cucinotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tommaso> While this could be useful to allow activation of the
Tommaso> functionality from the action buffer or a script, why don't
Tommaso> just call the method, instead, from the GUI classes ?
This was part of the Model/View/Contr
On 7/10/07, Tommaso Cucinotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, as a newbie of the LyX code, I'm just
curious about the purpose of the FuncRequest/dispatch
mechanism. Specifically, it is not clear to me why from the
GUI some functions produce a formatted text string that
is dispatched through a Func
Hi, as a newbie of the LyX code, I'm just
curious about the purpose of the FuncRequest/dispatch
mechanism. Specifically, it is not clear to me why from the
GUI some functions produce a formatted text string that
is dispatched through a FuncRequest object, for being
parsed later somewhere else in t
18 matches
Mail list logo