X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["3478" "Mon" "8" "November" "93" "14:10:37" "+0000" "Paul Taylor" "pt@DOC.IMPERIAL.AC.UK" nil "70" "NF prefix, LaTeX/NFSS compatibility, etc" "^Date:" nil nil "11"]) Return-Path: Received: from sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (mailserv) by dagobert.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0/24.6.93) id AA06525; Mon, 8 Nov 93 15:30:03 +0100 Received: from vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de (vm.hd-net.uni-heidelberg.de) by sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0-sc/03.06.93) id AA07218; Mon, 8 Nov 93 15:29:58 +0100 Message-Id: <9311081429.AA07218@sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE> Received: from DHDURZ1 by vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0518; Mon, 08 Nov 93 15:28:33 CET Received: from DHDURZ1 by DHDURZ1 (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 2807; Mon, 08 Nov 93 15:28:16 CET Received: from DHDURZ1 by DHDURZ1 (Mailer R2.08 R208004) with BSMTP id 2804; Mon, 08 Nov 93 15:28:10 CET Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Date: Mon, 8 Nov 93 14:10:37 +0000 From: Paul Taylor Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple Recipients of Subject: NF prefix, LaTeX/NFSS compatibility, etc Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1110 I suggest that the discussion of "NF" prefixes on files misses the point. I defend the view that A LaTeX user is entitled to take *any* file called "times.sty" from the International TeX archive, put it in his macros directory, run his existing LaTeX implementation with \documentstyle[times] and expect to get his document printed in Times. In other words, rather than creating more new files called times.sty, nftimes.sty or whatever, there should be one version which supersedes all others, for all purposes. I do this for my own code (diagrams.tex, QED.sty, etc), as do Kris Rose and Alan Jeffery. It's tricky to catch all the cases, but well within the abilities of the LaTeX3 team. Each of, say, latex.tex, (nf)lfonts.tex, article.sty and amssymb.sty should check that the others are up to date and give a clear message (saying how to get a new version) if not. This is particularly urgent for [a]mssymb[ols].{def,tex,sty}, which has caused me (as a site maintainer) more headaches than any other single component. This is aggravated by users' habits of copying the damn file from the system macros directory on whichever stone age LaTeX implementation they first met into their privite directories. They do this because they don't trust us (implementers & maintainers), and I can't blame them. Only if one version is published which says in BIG LETTERS than it really does supersede all the others (and work) will they stop doing this. Currently we have (from the archive at Aston) aston/fonts/ams/amsfonts/amssym.def 4067 25 Feb 93 aston/macros/plain/contrib/amssym.def 4062 31 Aug 92 aston/macros/latex/distribs/nfss2/amssymb.sty 16339 05 Aug 93 aston/macros/latex/contrib/springer/ljour/amssymb.sty 8197 08 Jul 93 aston/fonts/ams/amslatex/inputs/amssymb.sty 7935 25 Jun 91 aston/macros/foiltex/amssymbl.sty 10635 25 Aug 92 aston/macros/latex/contrib/misc/amssymbols.sty 9515 02 Apr 93 aston/fonts/ams/amsfonts/amssym.tex 8678 25 Feb 93 aston/macros/plain/contrib/mssymb.tex 9194 27 Aug 92 COMPATIBILITY OF MATHS FONTS The LaTeXbook says that ${\bf ab}$ produces two bold letters, and similarly \it \sf \rm \tt \sl. For compatibility this has to stay - INDEFINITELY. (see below). However oldlfont.sty is NOT reverse-compatible, because with the AMS symbols (implemented by importing a file from amstex) work(ed) the other way: ${\Bbb AB}$, etc, produce one blackboard bold letter and one maths italic. Again this has to stay. WHY INDEFINITELY? I like Frank's solution of \documentclass for new things and \documentstyle for old. However it does not relieve you of the responsibility of still supporting ${\bf ab}$ for two bold letters, because of cut-and-paste. I have old notes of calculations I did some time ago which I intend to include in a future book. I've already spent the time proof-reading the subscripts in all of the formulae and see no reason why I should have to do it again, even when the surrounding text is completely new. Paul Taylor PS I'm really looking forward to the new release of LaTeX+NFSS2, but I shall believe it when I see it. One of the original Tugboat papers on NFSS promissed us LaTeX 2.10 with NFSS, but it never came. I would also like to have my confidence in Frank, Rainer et al. restored.