mailing-list for TeXmacs Users

[address@hidden]

On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 11:03:56AM +0100, Yannick Patois wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the answer.
> 
> > > First one is related to URL entered with <hyperlink||>. When I print the
> > > document, those links are lost (only the text remain). Is there a way to
> > > get them in parenthesis, footnotes or whatever ?
> > You may create a macro "hlink" with two arguments and
> > which is rendered in two different ways depending on a style file.
> 
> Hum, I dont know much about what you just said. Does it imply that I
> should stop using <hyperlink||> and create my own macro ? Seems not a good
> idea to me. I would better like to modify the behavior of the existing
> command. This is more coherent.

No you cannot redefine <hyperlink||> because it is built-in typesetter
element. You can only redefine style elements.

Actually, I believe user documents should not normally use typesetter
elements (except for physical layout control, like spacing, breaking
and font control) so many customizations would become seamless. But I
do not know what Joris thinks of it.

> Not so sure.... BTW I still dont know what append if I edit one of those
> generated field. In the TOC, it appends several time that the update
> seemed 'freezed' at some location and that I have no other way than to
> erase everything and do it again: maybe I accidentaly edited it and
> texmacs believed it had to be kept ? Seems not too 'natural' to me either.

What are you talking about?

It looks to me like your are confusing two things: the auxilliary toc
buffer (which you can only change with an external editor) and the
visible table of content (which you can edit in TeXmacs).

There is no good reason (except debugging and hacking) to manually
edit auxiliary buffers.

Also, you should not modify the visible table of contents. Normally,
updating it would erase all its contents and replace them with
autogenerated data. If that is not the behaviour you observe, please
give us a precise procedure so we can reproduce the problem.

My opinion is that table of content text should not be editable
(though it should be accessible to cursor motion), but TeXmacs cannot
currently forbid edition of content.

> > On the long run, I would like to stress that CVS itself is not a good tool
> > for many reasons. Most importantly, it is text-based, while TeXmacs
> > documents have much more structure. What we really need is a structured
> > kind of CVS.
> 
> That doesnt exist yet. Does it ? In the meantime, it's probably the best
> available tool for that purpose...

There are some tools from the XML world which may be applicable to
this purpose.

> texmacs should just be a bit careful about where it breaks lines (because
> CVS is tex-line based). And in fact, it's quire OK right now.

Right. The "pretty-printing" line breaking introduces a lot of noise
when diffing documents. I think TeXmacs is currently too much
concerned with having a "pretty" document format and that is sometimes
detrimental to the usability.

-- 
David Allouche         | GNU TeXmacs -- Writing is a pleasure
Free software engineer |    http://www.texmacs.org
   http://ddaa.net     |    http://alqua.com/tmresources
   address@hidden  |    address@hidden
TeXmacs is NOT a LaTeX front-end and is unrelated to emacs.