Message-Id: <199402101334.AA20866@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:  <199402101205.AA18275@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Date:         Thu, 10 Feb 1994 13:53:13 +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:      On compatibility in LaTeX2e [was: Re: keyed options lists]
Status: R

Alex Stark writes:

 > I personally like the
 >    \section[mark=short, ...]{full}
 > syntax. Apart from anything else, as commands include increasing number of
 > options the assignment format should make them less confusing.

Yes, definitely. I think that previous messages to this mailing list
have made clear that this is something for LaTeX3, not for LaTeX2e. As
David Carlisle pointed out, of one the key issues for version 2e was
*compatibility*, and that means, among other things,

        *not to introduce new syntax*.

Therefore, Mike Piff's remark in reply to David's message:

 David> %>
 David> %>key=value is definitely not a standard convention of 2.09.
 David> %>

 > I don't follow this argument.  \documentstyle can keep its old syntax, but
 > \documentclass is outside LaTeX209 and can do what it likes. Similarly
 > \...package... commands are entirely new.

is besides the point. \documentclass, as well as any other new
command, has to conform to the syntax rules laid down for
LaTeX2. Anyone who likes to maintain that this decision was not
correct is welcome to do so, but it is not going to be changed.

LaTeX2$_{\textstyle\varepsilon}$ (which is what the logo actually
looks like, and which should be immediately comprehensible to the
mathematically trained) is only a minor step forward. Those of you who
remember the time when the LaTeX3 project was born will also remember
that we wanted to produce LaTeX 2.10 then, as an intermediate step
towards LaTeX3. This idea was abandoned, since we thought that it
would be better not to try to patch the holes in the existing
software, but rather concentrate on writing the new system
LaTeX3. However, the proliferation of mutually incompatible systems
which were all called LaTeX -- a development for which some of us were
partially responsible -- persuaded us that it would be vital for the
survival of LaTeX and for its further development to have a unique
version, upon which the whole (La)TeX world can build. So, in some
sense we have been coming back to the original idea.

This means that some obvious mistakes and omissions in LaTeX 2.09 were
corrected for LaTeX2e, but nothing really new has been added nor will
be added.

It should also be noted that during the work on LaTeX2e practically no
time was left for working on LaTeX3. When we decided in favour of
LaTeX2e, it was rather clear to us that this would postpone completion
of LaTeX3 for an extra half year. By now, this half year is over, and
LaTeX2e is not yet finally released; therefore my estimate is more
like a full year lost.

I don't want to leave you with the impressions that we are not
interested in discussions on what is bad and can be improved and how.
We appreciate them. But it should be clear that this is for the future
development of LaTeX3. I invite everyone to find out more, by looking
into the LaTeX3 public library, which is on the ftp server
niord.shsu.edu in directory [FILESERV.LTX3PUB].

For the LaTeX3 project

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