Message-Id: <199401071107.AA21410@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 1994 10:23:32 +0000
From: Robin Fairbairns <Robin.Fairbairns@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Subject:      The extent of compatibility
Status: R

I'm working with one of our systems people in preparing a setup whereby
the general public can use 2e alpha for testing purposes.  He's just sent
me the following:

------- Forwarded Message

Subject: Re: Notes about l2e
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 1994 10:12:53 +0000
From: Martyn Johnson <Martyn.Johnson@cl.cam.ac.uk>

Sigh...

Whilst using seminar provokes various errors, formatting the manual
appears to work fine.  However it produces different output from 2.09.
This definitely is font-related - everything comes out smaller in 2e.
[I had bet that his problems with seminar were font-related, though
probably indirectly.]

It seems to me that compatibility does not extend to style files very
far at all. I hardly really expected it to, but you seemed to suggest
that it might. Is there an official statement on exactly what
"compatible" is supposed to mean? It obviously cannot be absolute, but
where is the line drawn?

------- End of Forwarded Message

I responded:

 The statement I thought I'd made (and certainly _should_ have made) is
 that the *aim* is to provide compatibility, but that I'll believe it when
 I see it.  In fact, I stumbled across a trivial example of incompatibility
 over the Christmas break: the upshot is that almost none of my 2.09
 documents will format with 2e...

Is there an `official' position, as Martyn asks?

R
--
Robin (Campaign for Real Radio 3) Fairbairns       rf@cl.cam.ac.uk
U of Cambridge Computer Lab, Pembroke St, Cambridge  CB2 3QG, UK