X-VM-v5-Data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil] ["1649" "Wed" " 2" "February" "1994" "14:44:54" "CST" "George D. Greenwade" "bed_gdg@SHSU.EDU" "<199402022049.AA27725@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>" "26" "LaTeX2e|3 and other packages" "^Date:" nil nil "2" "1994020220:44:54" "LaTeX2e|3 and other packages" nil nil]) Return-Path: Received: from sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (mailserv) by dagobert.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0/24.6.93) id AA27487; Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:49:18 +0100 Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de by sc.ZIB-Berlin.DE (4.1/SMI-4.0-sc/03.06.93) id AA18941; Wed, 2 Feb 94 21:49:16 +0100 Received: from tubvm.cs.tu-berlin.de by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de with SMTP id AA27725 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4(mail.m4[1.12]) for <@MAIL.CS.TU-BERLIN.DE:Schoepf@SC.ZIB-BERLIN.DE>); Wed, 2 Feb 1994 21:49:13 +0100 Message-Id: <199402022049.AA27725@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 0368; Wed, 02 Feb 94 21:49:08 +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 0366; Wed, 2 Feb 1994 21:49:08 +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 8745; Wed, 2 Feb 1994 21:48:41 +0000 Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project Date: Wed, 2 Feb 1994 14:44:54 CST From: "George D. Greenwade" Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L Subject: LaTeX2e|3 and other packages Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 1407 The recent discussion about the concordances between AmS-LaTeX with LaTeX2e (and, ultimately, I assume LaTeX3), as well as the tweaks provided for use of AmS-LaTeX led me to wonder...... Has there been any contact between the kernel development team (or anyone associated with the project) and authors of other packages regarding what they should do, if anything, to ensure that their packages are concordant with LaTeX as it evolves? This is cc'ed to Chris Hamlin at the American Physical Society (and contact for the heavily-used REVTeX package) as I'm sure he might like some quasi-official insight on how to handle the transition in the event that he hasn't received any. Don't know how many other production packages rely on LaTeX, nor if they are as widely employed as REVTeX, but I feel confident that the maintainers and organizations don't want to be hung out to dry when users install the latest LaTeX and find that there are problems when they have RTFM'med and their files don't produce as advertised. --George %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% George D. Greenwade, Ph.D. Bitnet: BED_GDG@SHSU Department of Economics and Business Analysis THEnet: SHSU::BED_GDG College of Business Administration Voice: (409) 294-1266 P. O. Box 2118 FAX: (409) 294-3612 Sam Houston State University Internet: bed_gdg@SHSU.edu Huntsville, TX 77341 bed_gdg%SHSU.decnet@relay.the.net %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%