Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.A3E26194@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:37 +0100 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A3E26194" 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: {3} Re: {2} {1} Transition from LaTeX 2.09 to LaTeX 3.0 Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1992 20:37:00 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Don Hosek" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Multiple recipients of" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 638 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A3E26194 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To add my two bits in the 2.09/3 debate: if there are changes to the language, fine. But if they're so dramatic that the changes to an existing document to get it to run can't be summarized in, say, 15 pages let's not use the name LaTeX. e.g., if I can no longer type \begin{quote} .. \end{quote} but instead have to say \begin{quotation|short} etc. that counts as a change, but if quote is left as a synonym for the latter, it doesn't. PC word processors have often been used as an analogy for deciding what sort of changes we can make, but really, a more appropriate analogy would be programming languages. Consider, for example, the difference between FORTRAN66 and FORTRAN77 and compare that to the difference between Pascal and Modula-2 or even C and C++. Regarding documentation, I intend to release a second edition of my LaTeX book when the "LaTeX3" changes are made (or perhaps a delayed first if you beat me to the punch, which I really doubt). So there will be at least some documentation available. Incidentally, I intend to eventually publish, in addition to the tutorial guide which I'm writing now, a reference manual, a cookbook and a style designer's guide. -dh ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A3E26194 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable {3} Re: {2} {1} Transition from LaTeX 2.09 to LaTeX = 3.0

To add my two bits in the 2.09/3 debate: if there are = changes to
the language, fine. But if they're so dramatic that = the changes
to an existing document to get it to run can't be = summarized in,
say, 15 pages let's not use the name LaTeX. e.g., if = I can no
longer type \begin{quote} .. \end{quote} but instead = have to say
\begin{quotation|short} etc. that counts as a change, = but if
quote is left as a synonym for the latter, it = doesn't.

PC word processors have often been used as an analogy = for
deciding what sort of changes we can make, but = really, a more
appropriate analogy would be programming languages. = Consider, for
example, the difference between FORTRAN66 and = FORTRAN77 and
compare that to the difference between Pascal and = Modula-2 or
even C and C++.

Regarding documentation, I intend to release a second = edition of
my LaTeX book when the "LaTeX3" changes are = made (or perhaps a
delayed first if you beat me to the punch, which I = really doubt).
So there will be at least some documentation = available.
Incidentally, I intend to eventually publish, in = addition to the
tutorial guide which I'm writing now, a reference = manual, a
cookbook and a style designer's guide.

-dh

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.A3E26194--