Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.41E501CC@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:41:53 +0100 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]) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.41E501CC" x-to: tex-implementors@MATH.AMS.COM, latex-l@dhdurz1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: update on bibtex revision Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1991 21:19:46 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "bbeeton" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 332 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.41E501CC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable i've received the attached message from oren patashnik. i think that tying bibtex 1.0 to latex 3.0 is a good thing. however, oren will be ending his active development after that point is reached. if anyone is seriously interested in assuming the role of developer beyond that point, please make your interest known to oren and me. if no promising offers surface very quickly from this forum, i will publish a similar request in tugboat. -- bb -------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 7:11:39 PDT From: Oren Patashnik To: bnb@math.ams.com Subject: BibTeX update/question Progress on BibTeX 1.0 is inching along. (I've been in touch with Frank Mittelbach, and currently it seems best that BibTeX 1.0 and LaTeX 3.0 come out at about the same time.) Now I've been assuming all along that, after 1.0 comes out, BibTeX, like TeX, will be frozen. But the "BibTeX Reconsidered" article in TUGboat makes it sound as if there's interest in an evolving BibTeX (especially if LaTeX will continue to evolve). I'm willing to maintain a frozen BibTeX, just as Don is maintaining the frozen TeX, but if BibTeX is to continue to evolve someone else will have to take it over, in which case we'll have to figure out an appropriate transition. What form BibTeX 1.0 takes is at least partly dependent on its future. What's your understanding of what the TeX community wants? (I haven't talked to Frank since I read the article---I thought I'd check first with you at TUG to see if you have a sense of what's best. Feel free to send this to anyone who might have useful thoughts on the matter.) --Oren ------- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.41E501CC Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable update on bibtex revision

i've received the attached message from oren = patashnik.
i think that tying bibtex 1.0 to latex 3.0 is a good = thing.
however, oren will be ending his active development = after
that point is reached.  if anyone is seriously = interested
in assuming the role of developer beyond that point, = please
make your interest known to oren and me.  if no = promising
offers surface very quickly from this forum, i will = publish
a similar request in tugboat.
        =         =         =         =         =         -- bb
        =         =         --------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Apr 91 7:11:39 PDT
From: Oren Patashnik = <opbibtex@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
To: bnb@math.ams.com
Subject: BibTeX update/question

Progress on BibTeX 1.0 is inching along.  (I've = been in touch with
Frank Mittelbach, and currently it seems best that = BibTeX 1.0 and
LaTeX 3.0 come out at about the same time.)

Now I've been assuming all along that, after 1.0 comes = out, BibTeX,
like TeX, will be frozen.  But the "BibTeX = Reconsidered" article in
TUGboat makes it sound as if there's interest in an = evolving BibTeX
(especially if LaTeX will continue to evolve).  = I'm willing to
maintain a frozen BibTeX, just as Don is maintaining = the frozen TeX,
but if BibTeX is to continue to evolve someone else = will have to take
it over, in which case we'll have to figure out an = appropriate
transition.  What form BibTeX 1.0 takes is at = least partly dependent
on its future.  What's your understanding of = what the TeX community
wants?  (I haven't talked to Frank since I read = the article---I
thought I'd check first with you at TUG to see if you = have a sense of
what's best.  Feel free to send this to anyone = who might have useful
thoughts on the matter.)

        --Oren
-------

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.41E501CC--