X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["569" "Fri" "28" "January" "1994" "16:30:01" "GMT" "Philip TAYLOR" "CHAA006@VAX.RHBNC.AC.UK" "<199401281633.AA16427@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>" "10" "Re: form and content" "^Date:" nil nil "1" "1994012816:30:01" "form and content" (number " " mark " Philip TAYLOR Jan 28 10/569 " thread-indent "\"Re: form and content\"\n") nil]) Return-Path: Received: from sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (mailserv) by dagobert.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0/24.6.93) id AA15803; Fri, 28 Jan 94 17:33:17 +0100 Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de by sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0-sc/03.06.93) id AA11822; Fri, 28 Jan 94 17:33:15 +0100 Received: from tubvm.cs.tu-berlin.de by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de with SMTP id AA16427 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4(mail.m4[1.12]) for <@MAIL.CS.TU-BERLIN.DE:Schoepf@SC.ZIB-BERLIN.DE>); Fri, 28 Jan 1994 17:33:13 +0100 Message-Id: <199401281633.AA16427@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de> Received: from TUBVM.CS.TU-BERLIN.DE by tubvm.cs.tu-berlin.de (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3921; Fri, 28 Jan 94 17:33:13 +0200 Received: from VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (NJE origin MAILER@DHDURZ1) by TUBVM.CS.TU-BERLIN.DE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3920; Fri, 28 Jan 1994 17:33:13 +0200 Received: from VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (NJE origin LISTSERV@DHDURZ1) by VM.URZ.UNI-HEIDELBERG.DE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6026; Fri, 28 Jan 1994 17:32:53 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Date: Fri, 28 Jan 1994 16:30:01 GMT From: Philip TAYLOR Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: Re: form and content Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1348 I do not think that Barbara, Mike or I are at odds at all: surely Barbara is advocating that in (for example) documents intended for TUGboat, the embedded markup is that defined by (say) TugBoat.Sty; provided that that markup is distinct from, and not merely an overlapping set with, the predefined (La)TeX macros, then Mike's original proposition is fully complied with. Only if TUGboat-compliant markup was defined to require direct use of (some) predefined (La)TeX macros would there be any conflict. N'est-ce pas? ** Phil.