Message-Id: <199402101948.AA29755@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Date:         Thu, 10 Feb 1994 20:49:00 +0100
From: Frank Poppe <POPPE@swov.nl>
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

I think the discussion compatibility should focus on LaTeX3, not on
(what should have been done with) LaTeX2e. I'm happy to accept that
LaTeX2e will not change, but it's (Beta-)release can start new
discussions on LaTeX3-issues (after all, this is called a discussion
list for the LATEX3 project...).

What I have been missing in some notes is the distinction between
compatiblity for style designers and maintainers, and compatibility for
users.
It seems we'll have to accept quite some changes in the way styles
(packages/options/classes...) can "hook into" the LaTeX code. That may
be a point of concern in itself, but compatibility towards the users
seems more important to me.

In the coming years users will be forced (eg by local style designers
who want to use possibilities of LaTeX2e) to switch to \documentclass
syntax and other "new" commands. If LaTeX3 would force them to yet
another command that would give LaTeX (and possibly TeX) a "bad name".
Although using the same command with a new syntax would be even worse
then a new command, a syntax that would be "upwards compatible" should
be the goal.

That's why my suggestion for a keyed option list was in the form
  \command[[key1]value1[key2]value2]{required}
and not
  \command[key1=value1,key2=value2]{required}
because the latter would mean that using a = in the "old fashioned" syntax
would wreck the whole run. My suggestion makes it impossible to start an
"old fashioned" optional value with [, but I don't even know if that is
possible right now.

But let us stop discuss what should have been done with LaTeX2e.

_____________________________________________________________________________
 Frank Poppe             <poppe@swov.nl>                tel:   +31 70 3209323
 Institute for Road Safety Research SWOV                fax:   +31 70 3201261
    ,,,  ,, ,, ,,  .... ,, ,,                           mail:      PO Box 170
   ||,,, || || || :: :: || ||                            2260 AD Leidschendam
   ,,,|~ ||,'|,~  :: :' ||,~                                  the Netherlands