Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.A26BF8FC@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:35 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A26BF8FC" 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} {1} Transition from LaTeX 2.09 to LaTeX 3.0 Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 15:38:27 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Dominik Wujastyk" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Multiple recipients of" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 635 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A26BF8FC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This question about the relationship between latex3 and latex209 is very interesting and important, and I see virtue in most of the opinions that have been voiced, even if they are sometimes contradictory (me and Walt Whitman, eh?). One issue that hasn't been mentioned yet is the role of the printed LaTeX manual. This is in very wide circulation, and in an important sense it *defines* LaTeX. I know it mentions 2.09 on the reverse title page, but still, I think that the published manual is important enough to require careful consideration. If latex3 supports commands documented in the manual, but adds extensions, I think it can safely still be called LaTeX, even if what goes on "under the bonnet" is quite different. Is Addison Wesley paying any attention to the latex3 developments? Are they going to be willing to print a new manual. Is someone going to write one? Again, if latex3 is significantly different >from 209 in its user interface and functionality, then if it wishes to be called LaTeX it is going to be important for Add. Wes. to publish a new manual, loudly proclaiming itself as the new LaTeX. (More loudly than TeX 2->3, for instance!) Dominik ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A26BF8FC Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {2} Re: {1} {1} Transition from LaTeX 2.09 to LaTeX = 3.0

This question about the relationship between latex3 = and latex209 is
very interesting and important, and I see virtue in = most of the
opinions that have been voiced, even if they are = sometimes
contradictory (me and Walt Whitman, eh?).

One issue that hasn't been mentioned yet is the role = of the printed
LaTeX manual.  This is in very wide circulation, = and in an important
sense it *defines* LaTeX.  I know it mentions = 2.09 on the reverse
title page, but still, I think that the published = manual is
important enough to require careful = consideration.

If latex3 supports commands documented in the manual, = but adds
extensions, I think it can safely still be called = LaTeX, even if
what goes on "under the bonnet" is quite = different.

Is Addison Wesley paying any attention to the latex3 = developments?
Are they going to be willing to print a new = manual.  Is someone
going to write one?  Again, if latex3 is = significantly different
>from 209 in its user interface and functionality, = then if it wishes
to be called LaTeX it is going to be important for = Add. Wes. to
publish a new manual, loudly proclaiming itself as = the new LaTeX.
(More loudly than TeX 2->3, for instance!)

Dominik




------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A26BF8FC--