Message-Id: <9303011806.AA19099@sc.zib-berlin.dbp.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
In-Reply-To:  <01GVAEZD0JG2GW2HOY@MATH.AMS.ORG>
Date:         Mon, 1 Mar 93 19:06:11 CET
From: Michael Downes <MJD@MATH.AMS.ORG>
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


>                                                   ... Which is
> psychologically better, an intermediate half-way house soon, or
> nothing until a real LaTeX3?

I think the biggest problem is end-user documentation. As long as
Lamport's LaTeX book says what it says about e.g. \rm, unsuspecting
users are likely to go astray. If LaTeX 2.10 were released (I'm
expecting Frank to say No!) and if with the default installation the
commands \rm, \bf did not behave exactly as described in Lamport's
book, then I would advocate making \rm, \bf, \it, \sf, \sc (maybe
\normalsize, \large, ... as well!?) all give error messages, for
example "! Obsolete font command---use \textrm instead (see LaTeX 2.10
documentation)". These error messages could be suppressed by using the
`oldlfont' option, for processing already written documents that use
2.09 font commands. And then write a few pages of some novice-level
documentation that only says things like "Use \textrm{...} instead of
{\rm...}" but does not mention more expert topics like \fontsize,
\fontshape, fontdef files, etc. (only a reference where to look them
up if more information is needed). And make a very strong effort to
make sure all users get a printed copy of this novice documentation
and paste it into the back of their LaTeX book or attach it with a
welded chain :-).

The trouble is, writing that documentation and arranging to publicize
it can take a lot of time and work.

Michael Downes                              mjd@math.ams.org (Internet)