Message-Id: <199405050939.LAA07048@mail.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Reply-To: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L%DHDURZ1.BITNET@tubvm.cs.tu-berlin.de>
In-Reply-To:  <9405050815.AA03334@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> (message from Andrea
              Sterbini on Thu, 5 May 1994 10:12:46 EDT)
Date:         Thu, 5 May 1994 10:38:39 BST
From: David Carlisle <carlisle@CS.MAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Mailing list for the LaTeX3 project <LATEX-L%DHDURZ1.BITNET@tubvm.cs.tu-berlin.de>
To: Multiple recipients of list LATEX-L <LATEX-L%DHDURZ1.BITNET@tubvm.cs.tu-berlin.de>
Subject:      Re: A suggestion for the graphic packages
Status: R

> I suggest that all the graphic packages and classes in LaTeX 2e (and in future
> LaTeX 3) accept the option "nopic" (or a similar standard option) so that,
> with this option, all the drawing commands have an empty body.

The Standard LaTeX graphics package that is under test at the moment
(ctan:macros/latex2e/packages/graphics) uses the option `draft' for
this. It has an option `final' to turn off this feature. (`final' is
called `nodraft' in the current version.)

This means you can go

\documentclass[draft]{article}

\usepackage{....}

and any packages that recognise the `draft' option will do the right
thing. If you want to have most of the document features `draft' you
can still turn on particular packages by using `final' in the
\usepackage line. Similarly if the \documentclass uses the default
`final' option, you can make individual packages draft.

As you mentioned having agreement between packages to use the same
option names is certainly a good thing.

David