Message-Id: <9311081439.AA07272@sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@vm.urz.Uni-Heidelberg.de>
In-Reply-To:  <199311080734.AA08145@aragorn.ics.muni.cz> from "Goossens Michel"
              at Nov 8, 93 08:33:15 am
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 93 15:37:10 CET
From: Jiri Zlatuska <zlatuska@MUNI.CZ>
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: the name NFSS
Status: R


Michel Goossens writes:
>
> Moreover, I would like that principle  of unique prefix to be extended
> to other  packages too, like  all the  babel option files  could start
> with  lb  (or bl).   The  same  for  the  different option  files  for
> LaTeX2e's  graphics, who  could have  lg (latex  graphics), etc.   The
> names of these files are of no concern to the average user.
>

while i see a point in the rationale for the argument above, i don't think
prefixing all the names is a good solution because it's just too visible
on the user's level and brings about incompabilities which lead to this
discussion.

the above could be satisfied if a different SUFFIX was chosen instead, that
is, e.g., article.s2e (or whatever else) for styles for latex2e, instead of
article.sty for old latex. this could be hidden from the user, as far as they
do not normaly input file extensions, yet this would still answer michel's
call for keeping style files for various packages distinct. one would still
have full 8 characters for mnemonic names even within ibm-infected systems,
without resorting to cryptic encodings.

--jiri zlatuska