Re: Springer Nature Journals layout: is this change safe?

I ended up pushing f13d9199, a variant of the patch that doesn't have side
effects. (I had forgotten the DocBookSection parameter!)

On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 at 00:02, Thibaut Cuvelier <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Second attempt…
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Thibaut Cuvelier <[email protected]>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2026 at 17:48
> Subject: Springer Nature Journals layout: is this change safe?
> To: LyX Developers <[email protected]>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> Following a report from Scott, I tried to improve the situation for
> exporting Springer Nature Journals to DocBook. The last few patches improve
> the situation quite a bit (and they should be safe to go in 2.5.x).
>
> There are two stubborn issues: algorithm floats and appendices.
>
> Unless I implement something specific to parse algorithms, the example
> will never work as is (the ERT starting with \begin{algorithmic}[1]) —
> there is nothing standard in DocBook for algorithms, I don't think I'll go
> this route unless there is a real need.
>
> I wrote a patch for appendices (in attachment), but I do not want to push
> without review. The current layout considers appendices as BackMatter, but
> they are really section titles. With this change, the DocBook output for
> appendices is correct, but I'm not sure exactly how much the change impacts
> the rest of LyX (apart from the UI). Without this, I cannot make appendices
> generate valid DocBook (well, unless we refactor the UI part from the
> handling part of categories: sections have a really different code path
> than the other styles in DocBook due to its hierarchical nature).
>
> What do you think? Maybe I missed something?
>
> Thibaut Cuvelier
>

-- 
lyx-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel