Message-Id: <199401071337.AA26336@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Organization: Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum fuer Informationstechnik Berlin
In-Reply-To:  <199401071107.AA21410@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Date:         Fri, 7 Jan 1994 14:36:03 +0100
From: Rainer Schoepf <schoepf@SC>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The extent of compatibility
Status: R

Robin Fairbairns writes:

 > 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:
 >
 > [...]
 >
 > 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?

Full compatibility is provided at the document level, apart from
possible use of other fonts. (Example: we decided to have \tt in math
to select the font in the appropriate size, rather than always cmtt10
as vanilla LaTeX2.09 does. Good or bad decision?) At the document
style file level, only a limited compatibility is possible. I admit
that the current compatibility mode is far from prefect; we are glad
to hear proposals on how to improve it. Finally, with regard to style
options 2e should be compatible as far as the interfaces are
compatible, i.e. no compatibility at all at the font selection level.


   Rainer Schoepf
   Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum
    fuer Informationstechnik Berlin
   Heilbronner Strasse 10
   D-10711 Berlin
   Federal Republic of Germany
   <Schoepf@sc.ZIB-Berlin.de> or <Schoepf@sc.ZIB-Berlin.d400.de>