Message-Id: <9303011641.AA18701@sc.zib-berlin.dbp.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 93 15:43:05 BST
From: Mike Piff <M.Piff@SHEFFIELD.AC.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
To: Multiple Recipients of <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
Subject:      Re: would a latex2.10 give a boost to latex3?
Status: R


Sebastian Rahtz writes:

> Subject: would a latex2.10 give a boost to latex3?
>
> The question arose in discussion of NFSS mark 2 of how to force sites
> all over the world to move their LaTeX work over to the NFSS (and, to
> a lesser extent, the extended LaTeX offered by the `Mainz' packages
> like array, multicols etc). I (inter alios) have offered the suggestion
> to Frank that he re-consider the possibility of an interim release of
> LaTeX 2.10, with the NFSS etc folded into existing source.
>
>   Pro: it would clear the air, give punters a feeling of action, and
>     give maintainers a positive reason to upgrade. style-file writers
>     would be under pressure to update their styles.
>
>   Con: it would satisfy no-one, and irritate many. Frank would have to
>     take time off real LaTeX3 to work on it, and Rainer would be
>     deluged with whinges. the LaTeX Book would no longer be correct.
>
> I'm curious about what others feel about this. Which is
> psychologically better, an intermediate half-way house soon, or
> nothing until a real LaTeX3?
>
> I'm not suggesting, by the way, that Frank necessarily take any notice
> of this!
>
> Sebastian Rahtz
>

WHICH (of the many versions that could be implemented in your format file)
NFSS do you mean? If I send you a LaTeX file that uses msam, eufb,
or even cmdunh say, at what point are you prepared to notice a problem?

I think we have to decide on a basic set of fonts which EVERYONE includes
in their format, and all others are then loaded via style files.
But if it is the extended fonts, which of us have room on our hard disks
to install them? And what does that do for the Times Roman lover?
(I must confess that I am no longer in that category.)

Also, it has to be oldlfont or newlfont---I assume that you are pushing
newlfont as the default, else there is no incompatibility with Lamport.

But there are other good things which could be included as standard,
which WOULD be incompatible with Lamport. For instance, I load verbatim.sty
into my format, and this behaves differently to verbatim in 2.09.
\verb also behaves inconsistently with 2.09, as I discovered recently when
sending a file to someone without verbatim.sty loaded. What about
multicol and array and all the other bits and pieces?

Mike Piff
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Dr M J Piff                      %%  e-mail:
%% Department of Pure Mathematics   %%
%% University of Sheffield          %%  M.Piff@sheffield.ac.uk
%% Hicks Building                   %%  PM1MJP@derwent.shef.ac.uk
%% Hounsfield Road                  %%  %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% SHEFFIELD S3 7RH                 %%  Telephone: (0742) 824431
%% England                          %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%