Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.41C0548C@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:41:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil t nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.41C0548C" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: APPENDICES/ compatibility problems Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1991 16:35:34 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "MITTELBACH FRANK" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 330 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.41C0548C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable David said some time ago: > > I presume that doing the above literally would conflict with the = requirement > that LaTeX 3.0 should be able to process LaTeX 2.09 input files (which = might > use \appendix as defined in the 2.09 manual). So \appendix would have > to be left with its 2.09 meaning, but something better could be phased = in. Let me say a few words to the compatibility problem. While compatibility is certainly an important issue, we should not make it the main issue. Seeking better solutions to some problems might result in some incompatibility in the end but once we found a solution we will probably also find a way to successfully parse older documents. I think that it is wrong to start with the idea ``LaTeX 2.09 has an \appendix therefore LaTeX 3 needs to have the same concept.'' To start with the goal that we ``necessarily can process LaTeX 2.09 *within* 3.0 documents without any changes to the old sources'' seems to be too restrictive (to me). We should try to achieve this if it is feasable but we should not defend bad concepts for the sake of full compatibility. In other words: when we found some concept feasable we can then ask how to achieve compatibility but not the other way arround. Frank P.S. I'm rather silent at the moment due to some constraints here at EDS. It is difficult to do all these things in parallel and write code and earn some money and and and. This does not mean that I don't follow the discussions and contributions on this list very carefully. I would like to thank all people that take the trouble to write up their thoughts as I know that this takes considerable time. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.41C0548C Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable RE: APPENDICES/ compatibility problems

David said some time ago:
>
> I presume that doing the above literally would = conflict with the requirement
> that LaTeX 3.0 should be able to process LaTeX = 2.09 input files (which might
> use \appendix as defined in the 2.09 = manual).  So \appendix would have
> to be left with its 2.09 meaning, but something = better could be phased in.

Let me say a few words to the compatibility = problem.

While compatibility is certainly an important issue, = we
should not make it the main issue. Seeking = better
solutions to some problems might result in = some
incompatibility in the end but once we found a = solution
we will probably also find a way to successfully = parse
older documents.

I think that it is wrong to start with the idea = ``LaTeX
2.09 has an \appendix therefore LaTeX 3 needs to = have
the same concept.'' To start with the goal that = we
``necessarily can process LaTeX 2.09 *within* = 3.0
documents without any changes to the old = sources''
seems to be too restrictive (to me).  We should = try to
achieve this if it is feasable but we should not = defend
bad concepts for the sake of full = compatibility.

In other words: when we found some concept feasable = we
can then ask how to achieve compatibility but not = the
other way arround.

Frank

P.S. I'm rather silent at the moment due to some = constraints here
at EDS. It is difficult to do all these things in = parallel and write
code and earn some money and and and.
This does not mean that I don't follow the = discussions and
contributions on this list very carefully. I would = like to thank
all people that take the trouble to write up their = thoughts as I
know that this takes considerable time.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.41C0548C--