Message-Id: <199402022027.AA27161@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
In-Reply-To:  <01H8ELPK7FEA9OD7Q2@MATH.AMS.ORG>
Date:         Wed, 2 Feb 1994 10:05:27 -0500
From: bbeeton <BNB@MATH.AMS.ORG>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Subject: AmS-LaTeX with 2e
Status: R

various charges and countercharges have been crossing my screen
this morning on the subject of nfss2 vs latex2e.  it has been
pointed out that nfss2e was intended as a beta release, and
therefore, any use is at the user's own risk.

although i hesitate to become embroiled in this discussion, i
would like simply to point out that the one reference with which
i am most familiar -- sebastian rahtz's article "essential nfss2",
in tugboat 14 #2 -- nowhere says anything about "beta" or
"preliminary" or "about to be replaced" or "superseded" or ...
(if people offer other words and concepts for a search, i will
be happy to continue it.)  since this article purported to tell
an average user everything needed to begin using nfss2 effectively,
and it does give \normalshape and \mediumseries as the terms to
be used, i think it not surprising that there is some confusion,
even though the documentation accompanying the package (which i
haven't checked) apparently contains the "correct" terms.

i propose that what would be most effective in terms of just getting
down to using latex2e is to make sure that what is there now is what
is intended, and to publicize widely whatever document(s) can be
considered the authoritative guides to its use.
                                                -- bb

p.s. to respond to mike piff's invitation to confirm or correct his
proposition that using \documentstyle{amsart} is what would be
required for submissions to ams, i'm not the authority in this,
but i do believe that is what our guidelines for authors prescribe.