Message-Id: <199402031011.AA15095@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Date:         Thu, 3 Feb 1994 11:10:11 +0100
From: Frank Mittelbach <MITTELBACH@mzdmza.zdv.uni-mainz.de>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: doing a step a time
Status: R

Paul,

again you make me wonder ...

> I suggest that the principle is that the differences should be minimised,
> kept independent and generally such that converting one aspect (macro
> package or typing habits) does NOT prevent one from going backwards
> or force one to go all the way.

the latex2e version has as a major goal to make an end with various
latex dialects. If we allow people to misuse new features of 2e in
compatiblity mode, then we are sunk and people like you will then
complain in about a year that they do not know whether the document
they got is written for 2e or 209.

> The last few lines of latex209.cmp DISABLE certain LaTeX2e commands. Why?
> Apparently one is not even allowed to utter the name of God unless
> one is a True Believer.  The most important of these commannds is
> \usepackage, but that seems to be re-defined by article.cls.

the \documentstyle command is for processing documents written for 209
if i run it on a 209 installation (and as you claim some people will
have them around) then i expect that it will run. Well, it won't if
people have added 2e features.

> The article, report and book styles (as I commented last week) change the
> text area depending on \@ifcompatibility. This will also cause surprises
> to users which seem rather unnecessary.

again this is only a point if you try to produce new documents trying
both \documentstyle and \documentclass. sorry but this is not what
compatibility mode is meant for.

as said several times in the most recent past, the class file
dimensions are not finished and contain some errors and (pardon me,
will probably undergo some changes during the next weeks).

> Please allow us to change one thing at a time.

yes, to have the pleasure of hearing people complaining of incremental
changes coming every ... time

perhaps instead of writing such mails you could pick up one of the
style files of a publisher check it change it if necessary, send it
back to the publisher and tell him ``here is the update for your thing
so that it runs when 209 vanishes in spring'' and have some positive
mail on this list namely that it wasn't so bad after all to make it
happen.

frank