Message-Id: <199402101528.AA24050@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Date:         Thu, 10 Feb 1994 15:21:20 LCL
From: Mike Piff <M.Piff@SHEFFIELD.AC.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: On compatibility in LaTeX2e [was: Re: keyed options lis
Status: R

From:          Rainer Schoepf <schoepf@SC.ZIB-BERLIN.DE>
%>*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.

This argument would, of course, have been more cogent if "syntax" had
appeared in the index to Lamport. However, I think I understand what you
mean. You mean the stuff about \begin..\end pairs, declarations (whatever
those might be), optional [] parameters, * forms, etc.  I think the
implication is that the new features had to have the same look as the old
ones.

What I had expected was that you would keep the interface constant, but
include your nice verbatim, array, theorem, etc, extensions as standard.

I don't see any point in devoting much time to something that may and
probably will change again in the near (2 years) future. This is not "getting
it right", but just change for change's sake, and that is worse than the
status quo.

I feel betrayed by the LaTeX core team. After their brilliant contributions
to LaTeX with nfss and the things mentioned above, also doc and docstrip. Now
we have unnecessary experimental changes in LaTeX2e. (And there is *no*
mathematical significance in a *subscript* epsilon, by the way.)

I began to feel uneasy when the volunteer task list was announced. Here were
a list of tasks that seemed peripheral largely to what was needed in LaTeX. I
am not saying that some of them were not time consuming, but I felt that what
was needed was more actual *code* rather than talk. Also probably an attempt
to see if things were possible, rather than deciding what the syntax might
be.  Also, the *core* was explicitly (as far as I recall) excluded from the
tasks.

Perhaps the core team is too small, I don't know, but it seems as if this
number of individuals on LaTeX-L should be capable of producing more than
this after all that time. And this size project needs more than a half dozen
individuals working on it, maybe.

Sorry, but I feel as though LaTeX has lost direction. I can only hope that
the AMS stick with \documentstyle. I shall tell people to complain
vociferously if they don't.

Mike Piff

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%% Dr M J Piff, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of %%
%% Sheffield, UK.                    e-mail: M.Piff@sheffield.ac.uk %%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%