Message-Id: <199402110940.AA17723@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET>
Date:         Fri, 11 Feb 1994 09:35:11 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:          Frank Poppe <POPPE@SWOV.NL>
%>
%>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...).
%>
Well, I don't know, when I have raised issues about LaTeX3 here, people in
the core have responded with "LaTeX2e" is not going to change!

I think the main thing that should come out of this is that people should be
encouraged *not* to convert styles to packasses, but to leave them as they
are.

Presumably it would be easy to write a style option packages.sty that re-
enables the ability of \documentstyle documents to use plopages?:-)

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