Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.A1A9E434@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:33 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A1A9E434" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: {2} Re: {1} Transition from LaTeX 2.09 to LaTeX 3.0 Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 16:09:34 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Willibald Kraml" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Multiple recipients of" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 623 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A1A9E434 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 18 Mar 92 13:06:33 GMT, David_Rhead@vme.nott.ac.uk wrote: > ... > Is there anything to be said for not worrying too much about providing > a compatibility module for LaTeX 2.09? It would be one less thing to = do. > ... > This scenario might give "the project team" one less thing to do than = the > "provide a LaTeX 2.09 compatibility module for LaTeX 3.0" scenario. = Might > it be better to spend the finite time that is available looking to the > future than trying to be compatible with the past? > > David Rhead I agree with this. I would even go one step further: should the name = "LaTeX 3.0" be kept at all, which might suggest to all users a degree of compatibility which might not be there? Why not `NewLaTeX 1.0' or `NLaTeX 1.0' (I hope this discussion has not been raised before - after all: what's = in a name?!) Willi -- Dr. Willibald Kraml (kraml@kpmg.co.at) ...- -.-- --... ...-- = -.. . KPMG Austria, Koling.19, A-1090 Vienna --- . .---- .-- -.- = .-.. +43(1) 31 3 32 -201 (Voice), -5 (Fax) "Erfahrung ist fast immer eine EARN (BITNET): a7511daa@awiuni11 Parodie auf die Idee" = (J.W.Goethe) ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A1A9E434 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {2} Re: {1} Transition from LaTeX 2.09 to LaTeX 3.0

On Wed, 18 Mar 92 13:06:33 GMT, = David_Rhead@vme.nott.ac.uk wrote:
> ...
> Is there anything to be said for not worrying = too much about providing
> a compatibility module for LaTeX 2.09?  It = would be one less thing to do.
> ...
> This scenario might give "the project = team" one less thing to do than the
> "provide a LaTeX 2.09 compatibility module = for LaTeX 3.0" scenario.  Might
> it be better to spend the finite time that is = available looking to the
> future than trying to be compatible with the = past?
>
> David Rhead

I agree with this. I would even go one step further: = should the name "LaTeX
3.0" be kept at all, which might suggest to all = users a degree of
compatibility which might not be there?
Why not `NewLaTeX 1.0' or `NLaTeX 1.0'

(I hope this discussion has not been raised before - = after all: what's in
a name?!)

Willi
--
Dr. Willibald Kraml (kraml@kpmg.co.at)   = ...-  -.--   --...  ...--    -.. = .
KPMG Austria, Koling.19, A-1090 Vienna   = ---  .   .----    .--  -.-  = .-..
+43(1) 31 3 32  -201 (Voice), -5 = (Fax)   "Erfahrung ist fast immer eine
EARN (BITNET): = a7511daa@awiuni11         = Parodie auf die Idee" (J.W.Goethe)


------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A1A9E434--